IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-18437-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 MANOJ KUMAR ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on account of the fact that approval was accorded by the Competent Authority on 23.08.2024 that no fresh applications shall be considered for employment from the land oustees barring the claims/cases pending before any Court of law and the special dispensation shall cease to be closed for all intent and purposes. However, he refers to his application, Annexure P-6 as also its vernacular at Page 146 of the paper book which is stated to be duly received in the year 2017. Thus his claim could not have been rejected on the aforesaid premise. Moreover, the total land of his grandfather was 33 kanals, for which reference is made to paragraph No.4 of the writ petition, which is admitted by the State in paragraph No.4 of the previous order, Annexure P-12 dated 28.11.2018 and as per Clase 3 Sub-Clause-I, of the policy, Annexure P-5, the appointment can be given to son, daughter, daughter-in-law, grand son or grand-daughter and in the present case, the petitioner is the grandson of Jogi Ram, who is owner in possession of 33 kanals of land. He thus prays that the matter be reconsidered in view of the submissions made and the policy referred. RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.23 17:42 I am the author of this document CWP-18437-2026 -2- 3. The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and decide afresh expeditiously, taking note of the submissions made and policy referred to hereinabove, uninfluenced by the orders impugned herein, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 4. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to him and shall contain reasons, whereupon he shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 22, 2026. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.23 17:42 I am the author of this document