126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22542-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Poonam ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate and Mr. Navjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner on regular basis in view of the Government policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) and also to regularize the service of the petitioner and release the arrears of salary with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor on contract basis on 16.11.2010 as discernible from the agreement Annexure P-1. The petitioner has been continuously working since the date of appointment till date to the entire satisfaction of her superiors. The Government of Haryana issued notification dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2) introducing regularization policy of service of Group-C and Group-D employees who have completed three years of service. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent- NEHA 2026.07.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22542-2026 -2- Department for regularization but the same was rejected. A show cause notice was issued on 09.02.2018 to the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.5052 of 2018 titled as Poonam Vs. State of Haryana and others which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) in terms of order passed in CWP No.3337 of 2018 titled as Maina Mor Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 30.08.2018. The regularization policy issued by the Government of Haryana on 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2) was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.05.2018 in CWP No.17206 of 2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs. State of Haryana and others. The petitioner’s writ petition bearing CWP No.2217 of 2016 titled as Poonam Vs. State of Haryana and others was also decided along with the aforesaid petition vide order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-4). The State of Haryana filed SLP No.31566 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The regularization policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-5). Moreover, the learned Advocate General has appeared before the Division Bench in LPA-1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 23.04.2026 and made a statement that claim of each employee under the regularization policy would be considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order after NEHA 2026.07.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22542-2026 -3- affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent No.2. 6. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and respondent No.2 authority is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Aas Mohammad’s case (supra) and pass a speaking order after affording her an opportunity to be heard, 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 petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondents No.2 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh