CWP-21932 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 Virender Kumar State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of of the petitioner for decision dated of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P vs. State of Haryana and others, regularized along with all consequent service, seniority, pay fixati service benefits. 2. petitioner that 21932-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. RS Malik, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition under Article Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the cla of the petitioner for regularization of his decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-6); as well as judgment dated (Annexure P-7) in CWP-1770-2026 titled as vs. State of Haryana and others, and further, regularized along with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, pay parity arrears and all other admissible service benefits. It is inter alia submitted by learned petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21932-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. etition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to consider the claim his services in light of the policy 3) and in terms of the judgment Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on as well as judgment dated 12.05.2026 titled as Deepak Singh and others and further, service of the petitioner be benefits including continuity of on, pay parity arrears and all other admissible submitted by learned counsel for the appointed as Data Entry Operator on of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ m in light of the policy and in terms of the judgment Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 12.05.2026 Deepak Singh and others service of the petitioner be benefits including continuity of on, pay parity arrears and all other admissible RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21932 contractual basis and joined as such on 21.0 letter dated continuously working on the said post without any interruption. 3. dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioner ha entitled to regard, the petitioner ha (Annexure P regularization (Annexure 17206-2014 and others quashed by this Court the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 4. the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of th accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner 21932-2026 -2- contractual basis and joined as such on 21.0 letter dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure P-2); and since then, petitioner ously working on the said post without any interruption. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioner has joined on 21.02.2011 as entitled to regularization as per aforesaid Policy (Annexure P regard, the petitioner has also moved a representation dated (Annexure P-8) before the respondents to consider regularization. However, in the meantime, the (Annexure P-3) was challenged before this Court by way of 2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Polic quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid Policy dated upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the contractual basis and joined as such on 21.02.2011, as is evident from ; and since then, petitioner is ously working on the said post without any interruption. In the meantime, the respondent State had issued the Policy y it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as as Data Entry Operator, he is Policy (Annexure P-3). In this moved a representation dated 04.05.2026 respondents to consider his case for . However, in the meantime, the Policy dated 18.06.2014 challenged before this Court by way of CWP- Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana . Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Policy was on the ground that said Policy violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before l Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on Policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to e employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to for regularization in light of the RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21932 policy decision dated 18. granted all consequential benefits. 5. for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was paras of which, read as under: 21932-2026 -3- policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P granted all consequential benefits. Learned State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularizati by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in r claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, 6.2014 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810- titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while idering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21932 6. in the above terms. 21932-2026 -4- as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mad (supra). 9. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for reg 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the above terms. as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by eaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be eeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from of receipt of certified copy of this order. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21932 7. objection’ to the same. 8. parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months 16.04.2026 case (Supra) 9. 20.07.2026 rishu 21932-2026 -5- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable counsel for the petitioner submits that he has ‘no Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Aas Mohammad and with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of from today, while keeping in mind the judgment dated passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.