CWP-15922-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CWP-15922-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Ashok @ Ashok Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Bishan Dass Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., 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 consider the case of the petitioners and regularize their services. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as Part-time Sweepers in the Education Department. The petitioners were rendering their duties for 24 hours as they stay inside the school premises and their part-time status is only in papers. The Government of Haryana and the concerned department have issued Instructions from time to time for regularization of the part-time group employees in the year 1999, 2003 and 2004 as discernible from Annexures P-2 to P-4, respectively). He further submits that some of the identically circumstanced employees have already been regularized. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-15922-2026 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure P-9 vide which the similarly situated employee namely Krishan has also been regularized. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) upon the respondents, which is pending consideration. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6798/2019, titled as Prem Singh vs Uttar Pradesdh and others, decided on 02.09.2019; Jaggo vs Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034 and the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-31304-2025 and connected cases, titled as Joginder vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.12.2025. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-5) submitted by the petitioners is decided by respondents No.1 and 2/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 respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority is directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-15922-2026 3 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh’s case (supra), Jaggo’s case (supra) and the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Joginder’s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, 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 petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.