CWP-20683-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CWP-20683-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Jyotsna Gulati ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.S. Patter, Advocate with Mr. Abhayjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner under the Haryana Government Regularization Policy dated 16.06.2014 w.e.f. the date she became entitled, along with all the consequential benefits including seniority, refixation of pay, arrears of salary, annual increments and all other service benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor on contractual basis on 22.07.2008 after possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post and has been serving the respondents since then, thereby rendering continuous service in accordance with the terms of her engagement. He further submits that the State of Haryana framed the Regularization Policy dated 16.06.2014 MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-20683-2026 2 (Annexure P-2) governing the regularization of contractual employees, under which the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.13659 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) with a direction to the respondents to consider her claim, however on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-17206-2014, titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.05.2018, the claim of the petitioner remained pending. He further submits that although the aforesaid Regularization Policy (Annexure P-2) was initially quashed by this Court, the matter ultimately attained finality before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, titled as Madan Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, wherein the Regularization Policy was upheld vide judgment dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) upon the respondents requesting consideration of her claim for regularization in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), however, despite the lapse of sufficient time, no decision has been taken thereon by the competent authority. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-20683-2026 3 petitioner is decided by respondent/competent authority by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent/competent authority is directed to consider the legal notice dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order in the light of directions issued by this Court in CWP-13659-2016 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent/competent authority. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 10.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.10 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.