1 CWP-21748-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-21748-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 GEETA DEVI ....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Arvind Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1. This Civil Writ Petition is being filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner despite his entitlement under the applicable Government policies/instructions dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3); and a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the PARUL VERMA 2026.07.21 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 2 CWP-21748-2026 aforesaid policies/instructions, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears of pay and other service benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner further seeks a direction to respondents to consider and decide the legal notice dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IV part-time Sweeper against a duly sanctioned post through the Employment Exchange on 03.03.1999 and has rendered more than 27 years of continuous, uninterrupted and satisfactory service. It is submitted that despite being fully eligible for regularization under the Government policies/instructions dated 11.11.2003 and 18.06.2014, the respondents have arbitrarily failed to regularize her services, whereas even employees junior to the petitioner have been granted the benefit of regularization. 2.1. It is further contended that the policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 (Annexure P-4). Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 31304 of 2025, decided on PARUL VERMA 2026.07.21 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 3 CWP-21748-2026 31.12.2025), as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024, decided on 20.12.2024, wherein it has been held that similarly situated employees who have completed the requisite qualifying service are entitled to regularization in accordance with the applicable policy. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment(s) and, therefore, she is entitled to the same relief. 2.2. It is lastly submitted that despite service of a legal notice dated 25.05.2026, Annexure P-8, upon the respondents requesting regularization of her services, no action has been taken, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2.3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer to the limited extent that the petitioner would be satisfied if her legal notice dated 25.05.2026, Annexure P-8 is decided by respondent No.2/ competent authority in the light of aforesaid judgment(s) by passing a speaking order within a time-bound period. 3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the PARUL VERMA 2026.07.21 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 4 CWP-21748-2026 legal notice dated 25.05.2026, Annexure P-8 of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider the legal notice dated 25.05.2026, Annexure P-8 of the petitioner in the light of judgment(s) rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra), Jaggo (supra) and by this Court in Joginder Singh (supra) and pass a speaking order, after affording her an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 02 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 the respondent. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.07.21 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.