CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Krishan Kumar and others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate and Ms. Riya Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ in the nature of nature of Certiorari for quashing the non-speaking orders dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-16) and 03.09.2025 (Annexure P- 13 to 15). vide which claim of the petitioners for granting regularization after completing services of 2 years has been rejected; AND/OR it is further prayed that issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the services of the petitioners to be regularized after completing of the 2 years as per instructions dated 23.03.1998 (Annexure P-4); and also to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioners along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. date of regularization after completion of 2 years contractual service. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 2 of 8 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Conductors in the respondent- Department on contract basis on 18.01.1994, 04.03.1994, 07.12.1993 and 09.12.1993 respectively. During the period of service of petitioners, there were no adverse records or any complaints against them in any manner. 3. It is submitted that as per the Instructions dated 28.07.1994 (Annexure P-3), it is stipulated that services of those employees who have been appointed as Conductors in Haryana Roadways on contractual basis, are liable to be regularized after a period of 2 years. Again, vide Notification dated 23.03.1998 (Annexure P-4), the Transport Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh reiterated the above said Instructions that those Drivers and Conductors appointed on contractual basis, who have completed 2 years’ service, be regularized. However, despite the above said Instructions, services of the petitioners were not regularised after two years; and were regularized only on 30.04.2002, 21.10.1998, 07.12.1999 and 01.03.1997 respectively. It is contended that therefore, petitioners have been regularized by ignoring the mandate of the aforesaid letters dated 28.07.1994 and 23.03.1998. 4. In this regard, petitioners have submitted Representation dated 08.04.2022 (Annexure P-9), to the respondents. Petitioners had also served legal notice dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-11) upon the respondents. However, as no action was taken thereupon, petitioners had filed CWP-12640-2025 titled as Krishan Kumar and others vs. State DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 3 of 8 of Haryana and others, Neutral Citation No. 2025:PHHC:058501; which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P- 12) with direction to the respondents to decide legal notice dated 11.12.2024. Thereafter, petitioners were constrained to file COCP-1919- 2025 for non-compliance. In pursuance thereto, impugned orders dated 17.10.2025 and 3.9.2025, rejecting the claim of the petitioners have been passed. It is pointed out that similarly situated persons had been regularized after 2 years vide order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-10). Petitioners are therefore, entitled for regularization in service after 2 years w.e.f. dates of their appointment on the basis of Instructions dated 28.07.1994 (Annexure P-3) and Notification dated 23.03.1998 (Annexure P-4). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that claim of the petitioners is highly belated and, therefore, is barred by delay and laches. It is further submitted that in any event, Instructions dated 28.07.1994 relied upon by the petitioners stand withdrawn vide letter dated 17.11.1995. As such, no right accrues to the petitioners. She accordingly prays for dismissal of present Writ Petition. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 4 of 8 7. The factual matrix of the case has already been noted herein above. The petitioners are seeking regularization w.e.f. 2 years after their dates of appointment on the basis of Instructions dated 28.07.1994 (Annexure P-3) and Notification dated 23.03.1998 (Annexure P-4). However, perusal of the impugned order dated 16/17.10.2025 (Annexure P-16) reveals that respondents have categorically stated therein that the above said Instructions/letter dated 28.07.1994 (Annexure P-3) stands withdrawn as far back as vide letter dated 17.11.1995. Clearly therefore, the very basis on which the case of the petitioners is founded, ceased to exist as far back as on 17.11.1995. 8. Contention of the petitioners that they are eligible for regularization after contractual service of 2 years as per Instructions dated 23.03.1998 (Annexure P-4), is also misconceived. In the present case, dates of the appointments of the petitioners are 18.01.1994, 04.03.1994, 07.12.1993 and 09.12.1993 respectively. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by the respondents in case of petitioner No.1-Krishan Kumar shows that petitioner No.1 was appointed on 16.01.1994 on contractual basis and was regularized on 01.05.2002 according to Government Instructions dated 23.03.1998. Similarly, in impugned order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-14) passed in respect of petitioner No.2-Ramesh, it is mentioned that petitioner No.2 was appointed on 09.12.1993 on contractual basis to the post of Conductor and was regularized from 11.03.1997 as per Government Instructions dated 11.09.2006. Similar DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 5 of 8 order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-15) was passed in respect of petitioner No.3-Behram; and is mentioned that petitioner No.3 was appointed on 04.03.1994 on contractual basis and regularized from 21.10.1998 in accordance with the Government Instructions dated 23.03.1998. In respect of petitioner No.4-Ishwar Singh, impugned order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-16) was passed pointing out that petitioner No.4 was appointed on 08.12.1993 on contractual basis; that Instructions dated 28.07.1994 were withdrawn vide letter dated 17.11.1995 directing that “Staff working on contractual basis should not be regularized under any circumstances”; and subsequently in compliance of letter dated 23.03.1998 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, services of the petitioner No.4 could not be regularized on contractual basis as no post of Conductor was vacant during that period. In this regard, petitioner No.4 was called for personal hearing on 09.10.2025 via respondent’s office letter dated 29.09.2025. Consequentially services of petitioner No.4 were regularized from 08.12.1997 in compliance of policy dated 29.03.2004. 9. The above impugned orders are speaking orders and clearly enumerate cogent reasons as to why petitioners are not entitled for regularization after rendering 2 years of contractual service. 10. Even otherwise, claim of the petitioners is liable to be rejected being highly belated. In respect of appointments made in the years 1993- 1994 and promotions made between the years 1997 to 2002, petitioners have staked their claim for promotion for the first time DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 6 of 8 only by way of representation dated 8.4.2022 (Annexure P-9) i.e. after more than 20 years. Clearly, the claim of the petitioners is not maintainable at this belated stage. The said issue of delay as well as the issue regarding parity in terms of order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P- 10) relied upon by the petitioners, stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, wherein it has been held as under: - “A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged - Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 7 of 8 “23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15266-2026 (O&M) 8 of 8 Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 11. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's rights.” 12. Keeping in view the above noted factual and legal position, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 13. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 09.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.10 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document