124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22474-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, 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 as an Assistant Professor on regular basis w.e.f. 14.08.2014 in the Department of Pharmacy, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date it became due till the date of actual realization. Further, directing the respondents authorities to decide the representation dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Teaching Associate on contract basis on 14.08.2014 in the respondent-University as discernible from Annexure P-3. The petitioner claims entitlement to regularization on account of his unblemished and continuous service of more than 10 years. It is submitted that NEHA 2026.07.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22474-2026 -2- the petitioner is drawing salary equivalent to that of a regular Assistant Professor and performing the same duties as are being performed by his regular counterparts. The work being extracted from the petitioner is perennial in nature and indispensable for the functioning of the respondents. Further, the petitioner has been working against duly sanctioned posts and performing essential duties, which makes out a clear case for regularization in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India 2025 AIR SC 296; Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735; Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129 and the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Namita Khare Vs. University of Delhi 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4891. The petitioner also moved a representation dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) which remained unheeded. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 4. Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time- bound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 5. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of NEHA 2026.07.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-22474-2026 -3- 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 respondent No.2. 6. Disposed of, accordingly. (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