1 CWP-22341-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-22341-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 RAJBALA ...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. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 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 under the Haryana Government Regularization Policies dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-2) and/or 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), in view of the judgments rendered in Joginder v. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP-31304-2025 (Annexure P-6) and LPA No. 1092 of 2026 (Annexure P-7), with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears, and interest @ 18% per annum and further directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's legal notice dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.22 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 2 CWP-22341-2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper on 12.01.2004 through the Employment Exchange and has been continuously serving for more than 22 years without any break. It is submitted that the petitioner fulfills the conditions prescribed under the Haryana Government Regularization Policies dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and is, therefore, entitled to regularization. 2.1. Learned counsel further submits that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment dated 31.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20839 of 2025 titled Joginder v. State of Haryana (Annexure P-6), as well as the order dated 15.05.2026 passed in LPA No. 1092 of 2026 (Annexure P-7), directing the respondents to examine the cases of similarly situated employees in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. Despite service of legal notice dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-5), no action has been taken by the respondents. 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-5) is decided by the respondents/competent authority in the light of Annexures P-6 and P-7 by passing a speaking order within a time-bound period. 4. Notice of motion. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.22 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 3 CWP-22341-2026 5. Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 6. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider the legal notice dated 25.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in the light of Annexures P-6 and P-7 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 respondents/competent authority. 7. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 22.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.07.22 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.