130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22615-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Rajwanti Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, 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 regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Water Carrier in view of the policies/notifications dated 17.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) or 29.07.2011 (as amended) (Annexure P-4) along with all consequential and attended benefits including arrears of pay and pension along with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1996 on the post of Water Carrier as a part time employee. Her services were illegally terminated on 29.03.2000. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the learned Tribunal passed an award on 24.07.2012 directing reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages. The award was challenged by filing CWP No.6094 of 2013 titled as The District Education Officer, Rohtak Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22615-2026 -2- Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure P-2). The State of Haryana issued regularization policy on 17.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) and 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) which are applicable to the respondent-Department. The benefits under the said policies were granted to many similarly situated employees and juniors of the petitioner were also granted the same relief. The petitioner served a legal notice on 28.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) seeking regularization of her services. However, vide reply dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner’s claim for regularization was denied on the ground that the petitioner never worked or joined services even for a single day and therefore, she is not entitled to regularization. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that she superannuated about 12 years ago, as she has herself mentioned her present age as 70 years. It is, therefore, contended that her claim for regularization cannot be considered, as no jural relationship of employer and employee presently exists between the petitioner and the respondents. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-19168-2025 titled as Joginder Singh vs. HVPNL and another decided on 11.07.2025. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation 12 years back. Further, the claim raised by the petitioner is highly belated. Moreover, the petitioner's claim for regularization cannot be considered at this stage as no jural relationship of employer and employee NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22615-2026 -3- subsists between the petitioner and the respondents. The issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and stands settled by this Court in Joginder Singh’s case (supra). The operative part of the said judgment, reads as under: “2. The petitioner(s) through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to regularize him as Shift Attendant in view of State Government Policies and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of ‘Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others’, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. 3. On the asking of Court, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate conceded that no petition seeking regularization was filed during service tenure, however, he submits that Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2024 has granted benefits to many persons, thus, petitioner should be retrospectively regularized. 4. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis. He has no absolute or fundamental right to claim regularization. He as per his convenience remained dormant during his service. He did not think it appropriate to seek regularization. He has filed instant petition after his retirement. The relation between petitioner and employer has snapped. There seems no reason to invoke writ jurisdiction at this belated stage.” 5. In the present case also, admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on a part-time basis and did not seek regularization during her service tenure. The petitioner has approached this Court after her retirement, which took place 12 years ago. Once the petitioner has retired, the relationship of employer and employee stands severed. The claim raised at such a belated stage does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22615-2026 -4- 6. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the facts of the present case, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh