114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9858-2026 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Ram Chhavi Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), direct the respondent authorities to count adhoc service of the petitioner towards seniority from 16.08.1977 to 17.12.1986 and grant consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.8604 of 2007 titled as Dr. Surinder Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 09.09.2010 (Annexure P- 15) which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discernible from Annexures P-16 & P-17, respectively. As such, it is no longer res integra that the petitioner is entitled to counting of adhoc service from 16.08.1977 to 17.12.1986 towards NEHA 2026.07.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-9858-2026 -2- seniority with all consequential benefits including revised retiral benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a fence sitter. The petitioner in Surinder Kumar Mishra’s case (supra) approached this Court in the year 2010, whereas, the petitioner has approached this Court only when the favourable order is passed in the aforesaid case. As such, the petitioner’s claim is required to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner is seeking to revive his claim after 40 years, for which the cause of action arose in the year 1986 when the petitioner was regularized. 4. Therefore, in view of the above and without commenting further on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the legal notice (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, 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 petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh