CWP-18372-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-18372-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Shamsher Singh 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 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 regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034 (Annexure P-1) and the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-31304-2025 and connected cases, titled as Joginder vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are working as PGT and TGT Guest Teachers in the Education Department and they have been appointed between the year 2005-07 and they have continuously worked without any break in service for more than 20 years. He further submits that the petitioners MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-18372-2026 2 are performing duties of perennial nature, which are essential for the functioning of the department and their engagement cannot be treated as casual or temporary for an indefinite period. He further contends that the services of the petitioners are governed under the Haryana Guest Teachers Service Act, 2019 and the petitioners’ prayer for regularization is required to be considered in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra), Madan Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others, 2026 INSC 379 and the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Joginder’s case (supra), wherein similarly situated employees with more than 10 years of service were granted the benefit of regularization. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the instant writ petition of the petitioners is treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by respondent No.2 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 respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision thereof by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the case of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra) MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.16 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-18372-2026 3 (Annexure P-1), Madan Singh’s case (supra) (Annexure P-3) and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Joginder’s case (supra) (Annexure P-2), 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 respondent No.2. 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.