IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 COCP-3328-2026 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Harnek Singh ....Petitioner Versus Dr. Aditya Dahiya and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ---- Present: Mr. Sukhdev S.Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the respondents. **** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed for initiating proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-22247-2018 along with connected matters. Petitioner’s writ petition was registered as CWP-22253-2018, the relevant portion of the final order reads as under:- “2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to regularize them in the light of policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1). 3. The petitioner joined respondent in 1993 through regular selection process, however, on account of being over and above the advertised posts, came to be terminated in 1997. He remained out of service from 1997 to 2004. VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.22 19:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC COCP-3328-2026 -: 2 :- There are few petitioners who remained out of service even till December’ 2008. All the petitioners are claiming that they may be allowed to continue in service in view of The Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024. It is made clear that facts of many petitioners are different but prayer sought to be same. 4. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate assisted by Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents submit that claim of the petitioners would be considered in the light of afore- stated legislation. 5. Learned counsels for both sides are ad idem that validity of 2014 policy was challenged before this Court and now the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. 6. In the wake of statement of both sides, the petitions stand disposed of. Let the needful be done within 8 weeks from today. 7. As on date, the 2014 policy is not in force. It is hereby clarified that respondent would reconsider claim of the petitioners in the light of Supreme Court judgment on 2014 policy.” 2. On an advance copy having been served, Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondents and has produced a copy of speaking order dated 09.07.2025, purported to have been passed in deference to the order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-1). It is further clarified that the order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), appended with the contempt petition, does not pertain to the petitioner. The order dated 09.07.2025 is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to challenge the order dated VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.22 19:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC COCP-3328-2026 -: 3 :- 09.07.2025, in accordance with law, if required. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. 5. Rule stands discharged. (VIKAS SURI) July 21, 2026 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VARINDER PRASHAD 2026.07.22 19:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC