113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8260-2026 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Roshni ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate and Mr. Sharad Sangwan, 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 mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper on which she is working from the date of her initial appointment on 01.08.2001 (Annexure P-2) and further direction be issued to release all the consequential benefits from the date of her initial appointment including arrears of salary in view of seniority list (Annexure P-10) and the fact that persons junior to her have been regularized in the service (Annexure P-12). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix/grant minimum of the regular pay scale including dearness allowance to the petitioner along with arrears with interest from the date of their initial appointment and to let the petitioner re-join her duties as Sweeper and to release her salary which has been withheld since August- September, 2025 along with all other consequential benefits. Further, the NEHA 2026.07.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8260-2026 -2- respondents be directed to decide the written representations dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-13), dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-14) and reminder dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-15) by passing a detailed and well reasoned speaking order in a time bound manner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner’s claim for regularization has not been accepted by the respondents. The name of the petitioner for regularization has not been accepted, whereas, several juniors who joined the respondents later than the petitioner have been regularized. He further refers to Annexure P-10 i.e. the seniority list of the part-time employees in the District of Charkhi Dadri and submits that the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.127, whereas, her juniors at Serial Nos.128 to 133 have been regularized. The petitioner retired on 31.07.2025 by taking her date of birth as 10.07.1965. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had been continuously pressing her claim for regularization and her claim cannot be negated on the ground of retirement, as prior to her retirement, several persons junior to her in the seniority list had been regularized, whereas her case was never even considered. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Gaganpreet Singh and others Vs. Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd. and others 2025 (3) Law Herald 2343 which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.3586 of 2025 titled as Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd and another Vs. Gaganpreet Singh and others decided on 18.02.2026 and submits that her representation dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-14) be considered and decided in the light of Gaganpreet Singh’s case (supra) by respondent No.2. NEHA 2026.07.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-8260-2026 -3- 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that prior to the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner has never raised any grievance regarding regularization and thus, she is not entitled to the relief. However, he submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-14) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording her 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. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (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