CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Sahil ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mohit, Ms. Pavitra, Mr. Sachin and Mr. Bharat, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 3 to adjust /reinstate the petitioner in any other department in Haryana in light of Instructions issued by the respondent no. 1 vide Memo No. 16/75/2020-3GS-II dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-2). 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis through outsourcing as a Clerk in Treasury Office, Fatehabad vide order dated 09.09.2019. Petitioner had continued on the said post till 12.08.2021. These facts are evident from Certificate (Annexure P-1) issued by the Treasury Officer, Fatehabad. It is submitted that in August 2021, services DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) 2 of 6 of the petitioner were illegally terminated without any cause. Accordingly, petitioner had filed Representation dated 17.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) seeking reinstatement/adjustment in light of Office Instructions dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-2). However, no action has been taken thereupon. It is submitted that the petitioner is well qualified person having professional qualification like Computer Diploma; Diploma in Operation Theatre Technology. Petitioner has also worked in various institutions as Data Entry Operator as well as Clerk. It is contended that as per the Instructions dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-2), the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana had directed that wherever the post of Clerk is lying vacant, the persons previously appointed on contractual basis be adjusted until regular appointments are made. He accordingly prays that direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and adjust him. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that petitioner was never directly appointed by the respondent-Department but was working under the contractor. Furthermore, services of the petitioner had been relieved as far back as on 12.08.2021; whereas the petitioner had approached this Court only in the year 2026 i.e. 5 years thereafter. He accordingly prays for dismissal of present Writ Petition. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) 3 of 6 4. 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 petitioner. 5. The above factual matrix is not disputed by the petitioner to the effect that: petitioner had been working under the contractor; and had been engaged on contractual basis by the respondent-Department through said outsourcing agency/contractor. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was never directly appointed by the respondent- Department but was working under the contractor. No material to the contrary has been brought on record by the petitioner. No Letter of Appointment issued by the respondent-Department appointing the petitioner as Clerk, has been placed on record by the petitioner. 6. Petitioner has further stated in para 5 of the present Writ Petition that he was appointed under the Mukhya Mantri Parivar Samridhi Yojna. In para 6 of the Writ Petition, he has stated that 66 persons were engaged on contractual basis on DC rates; “and on account of joining of regular recruited employee, those contractually appointed persons were relieved.” Thus, no error can be found in the relieving order issued to the petitioner, as petitioner has not been replaced by contractual appointees. 7. Further, the petitioner had been relieved as far back as on 12.08.2021. Whereafter, it is only after 5 years, that the petitioner claims to have filed Representation dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) seeking reinstatement/adjustment. Thus, claim of the petitioner is liable to be DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) 4 of 6 rejected being highly belated. The said issue of delay 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 is held that: - “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:- “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 DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) 5 of 6 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. 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 DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20934-2026 (O&M) 6 of 6 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.” 8. 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.” 9. Keeping in view the above noted factual and legal position, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document