IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 107 Lilla Krishan State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus his representation dated dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P terms of the Haryana Government Policies dated (Annexure P judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 2024 decided on seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services in accordance with the aforesaid policies and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, along with all consequential CWP-20953-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20953 of 2026 Date of decision : Lilla Krishan Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nihal S. Choudhary, Advocate with Mrs. Anita S. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide representation dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-6) for regularization of his services in terms of the Haryana Government Policies dated (Annexure P-2) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services in accordance with the aforesaid policies and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, along with all consequential 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 20953 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-14.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Nihal S. Choudhary, Advocate with Mrs. Anita S. Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a directing the respondents to consider and decide 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) and Legal Notice for regularization of his services in terms of the Haryana Government Policies dated 29.07.2011 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4), in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of (Annexure P-7). The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services in accordance with the aforesaid policies and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, along with all consequential service benefits, VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document including seniority, pay fixation and arrears, together with interest thereon. 2. petitioner Class-IV Employee Burak, District Hisar (respondent No.4) 29.10.1993 (Annexure P vacant post. It is averred that since the date of his initial engagement, he has bee service and that his work and conduct have remained satisfactory throughout. It is further pleaded that during the entire period of service spanning more than notice or adverse entry has ever been issued against him. counsel for the petitioner of the judgment in Uma Devi dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P 9/Const./Art.309/2011 dated 29.07.2011 dated 03.08.2011 Class-IV employees who had been engaged pr against sanctioned vacant posts and who fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the conditions stipulated under the said policy and is, therefore, entitled to regularization of his situated Part CWP-20953-2026 (O & M) including seniority, pay fixation and arrears, together with interest It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as a IV Employee in the office of the Burak, District Hisar (respondent No.4) vide appointment letter dated 29.10.1993 (Annexure P-1) against a sanctioned and long vacant post. It is averred that since the date of his initial engagement, he has been continuously serving the department without any break in service and that his work and conduct have remained satisfactory throughout. It is further pleaded that during the entire period of service spanning more than 33 years, no charge notice or adverse entry has ever been issued against him. counsel for the petitioner further submits of the judgment in case titled as “Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi”, the State of Haryana framed the dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) vide Notification No. 9/Const./Art.309/2011 dated 29.07.2011 03.08.2011, providing for regularization of eligible Part IV employees who had been engaged pr against sanctioned vacant posts and who fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the conditions stipulated under the said policy and is, therefore, entitled to regularization of his services. It is further averred that similarly situated Part-Time employees working in various departments of the 2 including seniority, pay fixation and arrears, together with interest submitted by learned counsel for the was initially appointed as a Part-Time e of the District Ayurvedic Officer, vide appointment letter dated against a sanctioned and long-standing vacant post. It is averred that since the date of his initial engagement, n continuously serving the department without any break in service and that his work and conduct have remained satisfactory throughout. It is further pleaded that during the entire period of , no charge-sheet, show cause notice or adverse entry has ever been issued against him. Learned that after the pronouncement Secretary, State of Karnataka v. , the State of Haryana framed the Regularization Policy vide Notification No. GSR- 9/Const./Art.309/2011 dated 29.07.2011, followed by notification , providing for regularization of eligible Part-Time IV employees who had been engaged prior to the year 1996 against sanctioned vacant posts and who fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the conditions stipulated under the said policy and is, therefore, entitled to It is further averred that similarly Time employees working in various departments of the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document State Government, including the Education, Treasury and Ayurvedic Departments, have already been regularized under the aforesaid policy. The 29.07.2012 (Annexure P regularization of his services under the Policy dated no decision was taken thereon. further submitted Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P Notification No. 06/07/2014 extending the benefit of regularization to el 'D' employees, including Part completed the prescribed period of service prior to the issuance of the said policy. It is the petitioner's case that he also fulfills the eligibility criteria prescr after the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 ( Haryana and others again su (Annexure P regularization of his services in terms of the Policies dated (Annexure P the afores despite the submission of the said representation, no decision was taken by the respondents. CWP-20953-2026 (O & M) State Government, including the Education, Treasury and Ayurvedic Departments, have already been regularized under the aforesaid policy. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 29.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) before the competent authority requesting regularization of his services under the Policy dated no decision was taken thereon. Learned counsel for the submitted that the State Government thereafter framed another Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P Notification No. 06/07/2014-GSI dated 16.06.2014/20.06.2014 extending the benefit of regularization to el 'D' employees, including Part-Time Class completed the prescribed period of service prior to the issuance of the said policy. It is the petitioner's case that he also fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed under the said policy. after the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 (Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others) on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P again submitted a detailed representation dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) before the competent authority requesting regularization of his services in terms of the Policies dated (Annexure P-2) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, despite the submission of the said representation, no decision was taken by the respondents. 3 State Government, including the Education, Treasury and Ayurvedic Departments, have already been regularized under the aforesaid petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated before the competent authority requesting regularization of his services under the Policy dated 29.07.2011, but Learned counsel for the petitioner has that the State Government thereafter framed another Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4), notified vide GSI dated 16.06.2014/20.06.2014, extending the benefit of regularization to eligible Group 'C' and Group Time Class-IV employees, who had completed the prescribed period of service prior to the issuance of the said policy. It is the petitioner's case that he also fulfills the eligibility ibed under the said policy. It is further submitted that after the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Civil Madan Singh and others vs. State of (Annexure P-7), the petitioner representation dated 11.05.2026 before the competent authority requesting regularization of his services in terms of the Policies dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-4), while relying upon aid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, despite the submission of the said representation, no decision was VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. petitioner served through counsel upon the respondents reiterating his claim for regularization and requesting consideration of his pending representation in the light of the policies and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the of considerable time, neither the representation nor the legal notice has been decided by the competent authority. 4. considering his claim for regularization despite his lon uninterrupted service since this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 30.05.2026 Regularization Policies dated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated with all consequential service benefits. 5. came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Cour LPA-1810 Haryana and others, 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: CWP-20953-2026 (O & M) It is further averred that, having received no response, the petitioner served a legal notice dated through counsel upon the respondents reiterating his claim for regularization and requesting consideration of his pending representation in the light of the policies and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the of considerable time, neither the representation nor the legal notice has been decided by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering his claim for regularization despite his lon uninterrupted service since 29.10.1993, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 11.05.2026 30.05.2026, and to regularize his services in accordance with the Regularization Policies dated 29.07.2011 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated with all consequential service benefits. Learned State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Cour 1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: 4 It is further averred that, having received no response, the legal notice dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-6) through counsel upon the respondents reiterating his claim for regularization and requesting consideration of his pending representation in the light of the policies and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, despite the lapse of considerable time, neither the representation nor the legal notice has been decided by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering his claim for regularization despite his long and , the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of of the Constitution of India. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and 11.05.2026 and Legal Notice dated , and to regularize his services in accordance with the 2011 and 18.06.2014, read with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.04.2026, along State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20953-2026 (O & M) “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of actio available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various subm advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 9. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to acc consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. 5 Today, when the matter is taken up, we are Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. ng that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. disposed of in the above terms. 7. ‘no objection 8. the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Mohammad and others (supra); Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner thereupon within a period of in mind the judgment Supreme Court in 9. July 14, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-20953-2026 (O & M) 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representa the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” It is prayed that the present writ p disposed of in the above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner no objection’ to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for regularization; and pass a speaking or thereupon within a period of 06 months in mind the judgment dated 16.04.2026 Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra) Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 6 In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified All pending misc. application(s), if any, also It is prayed that the present writ petition be also counsel for the petitioners submits that he has Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Aas with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the for regularization; and pass a speaking order from today, while keeping dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble ’s case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document