CWP-21537-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 CWP-21537-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Priti Gupta and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.3. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for absorption/regularization of their services as they fulfill all the conditions and are working for the last more than 17 years in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs Union of India and others, 2024 INSC 1034 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the posts of Project Assistant were duly sanctioned by the Finance Department vide letter dated 04.02.2008 and the consequential order MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-21537-2026 2 dated 06.02.2008, pursuant to which an advertisement dated 14.03.2008 was issued inviting applications for the said posts as discernible from Annexures P-1 to P-3. He further submits that the petitioners were appointed as Project Assistants on contractual basis on 18.09.2008 after undergoing a regular selection process conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee and they joined their duties on 28.09.2008, though they were compelled to execute contractual agreements as they had no bargaining power as is evident from Annexures P-5 and P-6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the post of Project Assistant is a sanctioned post and the petitioners were appointed on a fixed salary of Rs.11,000/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs.13,500/- with annual increments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner No.1, namely Priti Gupta, was denied joining after availing maternity leave from 15.11.2012 to 14.02.2013, compelling her to file CWP No.11774 of 2013, which was allowed on 23.10.2013 with a direction for her reinstatement as discernible from Annexe P-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioners have continued to discharge their duties satisfactorily, as reflected in the Performance Report dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure P-16), wherein their performance was assessed as "highly remarkable and satisfactory" and therefore, the claim of the petitioners is required to be considered and decided as they have completed more than 10 years of satisfactory MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-21537-2026 3 regular service in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra) and Shripal’s case (supra). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have rendered satisfactory and unblemished service while discharging their duties. He further contends that the perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The petitioners are neither engaged as a part-time workers nor as a casual labourers. There has been no complaint or adverse remarks against the petitioners from the last 17 years. However, the respondents have failed to take any decision in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an apprehension that on account of approaching this Court, the petitioners’ contractual service may be terminated or replaced by another set of contractual employees. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-18) of the petitioners is decided by respondents No.2 and 3/competent authority by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 5. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondents No.2 and 3/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice (Annexure P-18) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order. 6. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents No.2 and 3/competent MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-21537-2026 4 authority are directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-18) filed by the petitioners and pass a speaking order in terms of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra), Shripal’s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, 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 petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondents No.2 and 3/competent authority as per the judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 7. It is made clear that the respondents shall also keep in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (13) SCC 292, wherein it has been held that employees working on contractual posts for several years cannot be replaced by another set of contractual or outsourced employees. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the services of the petitioners. 8. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.