1 CWP-18229-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-18229-2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Anil Kumar and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners in view of the settled principal of law as settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others’ decided on 20.12.2024 in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 (Annexure P1) and judgment dated 31.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.31304 of 2025 titled as ‘Jogiinder v. State of Haryana’ and other connected matters. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as Guest Teachers between 2005-2007 and have put in more than 20 years of continuous service. They are performing identical duties as are being performed by their regular counterparts. The duties performed by the petitioners are perennial in nature which are essential for the OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.14 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CWP-18229-2026 functioning of the department, despite the above. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in denying regularization to the petitioners, despite the availability of regularization policies after having continuously served the department for such a long period, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that case of the petitioners is squarely by the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP-25042-2025, Hari Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 08.09.2025 and CWP-31304-2025 and connected cases lead case being Joginder v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.12.2025 (Annexure P2). At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may be treated as a comprehensive representation and a direction be issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a stipulated period, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 3. On advance notice, Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 4. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.14 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CWP-18229-2026 No.2/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgments rendered by this Court in Hari Ram’s case (supra) and Joginder’s case (supra), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 4. It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners. Needless to observe that in case the petitioners are found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 10.07.2026 JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.14 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh