CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 1 of 17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 116 Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Bal Kishan and others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anil Bidhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned rejection order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-7 to P-11) vide which the claim of the petitioners for regularization of service in Group-D has been illegally rejected by the respondent Department without affording any opportunity of being heard; AND further issuance writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in service as Group-D employees in the forest Department with all consequential benefits. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the five petitioners are Class-IV, Group-D employees of the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 2 of 17 respondent-Department originally appointed in the year 1998. Therefore, petitioners have been working since last 26-27 years. Petitioner No.1-Bal Kishan had joined the service in the respondent-Department in the year 1999; petitioner No.2-Suman Bala had joined service in the year 2000; petitioner No.3-Ved Parkas @ Vedpal had joined service in 1998, petitioner No.4 had joined the service in the year 1998; and petitioner No.5-Ranbir had joined service in the year 1998. Yet, services of the petitioners have not been regularized even though petitioners are eligible to be regularized as per Govt. of Haryana Policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-1). Accordingly, petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP-4733-2017 titled as Vinod Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, filed on 06.03.2017. Vide order dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-3), the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing that case of the petitioners be decided in terms of CWP-2158-2020 titled as Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana decided on 13.03.2024 (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, petitioners had filed Representation dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) seeking regularization in terms of the aforesaid order dated 20.03.2024. However, vide the order dated 27.08.2024, the respondent-Department had illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization. 3. Petitioners had, therefore, again approached this Court by way of CWP-32630-2024 titled as Bal Kishan and others vs. The State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2024 DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 3 of 17 (Annexure P-6); whereby the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and to grant them benefit, if found entitled. It is submitted that as the respondents failed to pass any order thereupon, petitioners had filed COCP-500-2026 dated 02.02.2026. Pursuant thereto, the impugned orders dated 09.03.2026 (Annexures P-7 to P-11) in respect of each of the petitioners have been passed whereby claim of the petitioners has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel submits that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioners have failed to produce any letter of appointment. It has further been mentioned in the impugned orders that petitioners have not undergone any selection process and were never appointed against any sanctioned post. Learned counsel submits that from the Seniority List (Annexue P-2) issued by the respondent-Department itself, it is established that the petitioner No.1 has been working with the respondent-Department since 1999. This fact is further established from the Bank Account statement of petitioner No.1 (Annexure P-12), which amply demonstrates that the petitioner No.1 has been receiving salary from the respondents in his Account. Similarly, Bank Account Statement (Annexure P-13) of petitioner No.2 shows that she has been receiving direct payment from the respondent-Department in her account. Similarly, other petitioners are also receiving direct payment from the respondent-Department. It is submitted that the Forest Department has also issued Identity Cards to the petitioners. By way of DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 4 of 17 example, learned counsel refers to the ID card of petitioner No.4 (Annexure P-14). It is contended that therefore, no valid or viable reasons have been given by the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization. 5. In support, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC online SC 3826 in which it is held as under:- "However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization.” 6. Learned counsel also relies upon a judgment of this Court in Joginder Vs State of Haryana 2025 (3) PLR 436; wherein it is held that:- “A. Constitution of In India, 1950, Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227- Service Law- Regularization of employees- Temporary, contractual, or daily wage workers engaged for a considerable period- Petitioners working for nearly three decades- Non-consideration of their claims for regularization despite multiple policies issued by the State Government - Held, prolonged engagement for essential duties creates legitimate expectation for regularization Denial of regularization due to procedural objections or change of DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 5 of 17 labels like "contractual" amounts to arbitrariness and exploitation Petitioners entitled to regularization and consequential benefits.” 7. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and direction be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as they have worked with the respondent- Department for almost 3 decades. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and pointed out that speaking orders (Annexures P-7 to P-11) have been passed in respect of each of the 5 petitioners; thereby giving specific and cogent reasons as to why petitioners are not eligible for regularization. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be dismissed being without merit. 9. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been serving the respondent-Department continuously since 1998 for the last 26 to 27 years; and therefore, they are eligible for regularisation in terms of the 2003 Policy as also in terms of the above referred judgments. However, the record establishes that the petitioners have not worked continuously. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 6 of 17 11. A perusal of impugned order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P- 7) passed in case of petitioner No.1, namely, Bal Kishan shows as under: - “4. It is clarified that whatever work was performed by Sh. Bal Kishan s/o Sh Puran Chand was on a purely casual, temporary and seasonal basis, depending upon the exigencies of departmental requirements. Such work was not linked to any sanctioned post. No legally valid employer- employee relationship was ever established between the Department and the Sh. Bal Kishan s/o Sh Puran Chand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere taking of work does not amount to lawful appointment. 5. Based on the available departmental records, Sh. Bal Kishan s/o Sh Puran Chand performed casual labour work for limited durations as detailed below: Sr. No. Year No. of days engaged 1. 8/1998-2009 0 2. 2010 26 3. 2011 27 4. 2012-2015 0 5. 2016 52 6. 2017 103 It is evident that in none of the above years did Sh. Bal Kishan s/o Sh Puran Chand complete 240 days of work. Further, such work was not performed against any sanctioned or vacant post but was undertaken purely on a need-based casual basis.” 12. Similarly, in the case of petitioner No.2, namely, Suman Bala in the order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-8), it is stated as follows:- DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 7 of 17 “4. It is clarified that whatever work was performed by Smt. Suman Bala W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar was on a purely casual, temporary and seasonal basis, depending upon the exigencies of departmental requirements. Such work was not linked to any sanctioned post. No legally valid employer- employee relationship was ever established between the Department and the Smt. Suman Bala W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere taking of work does not amount to lawful appointment. 5. Based on the available departmental records, Smt. Suman Bala W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar performed casual labour work for limited durations as detailed below: Sr. No. Year No. of days engaged 1. 8/1998- 2015 0 2. 2016 48 3. 2017 0 It is evident that in none of the above years did Smt. Suman Bala W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar complete 240 days of work. Further, such work was not performed against any sanctioned or vacant post but was undertaken purely on a need-based casual basis.” 13. Similarly, in the case of petitioner No.3, namely, Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Fakkar Ram in the order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-9), it is stated as follows: - “4. It is clarified that whatever work was performed by Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Fakkar Ram was on a purely casual, DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 8 of 17 temporary and seasonal basis, depending upon the exigencies of departmental requirements. Such work was not linked to any sanctioned post. No legally valid employer- employee relationship was ever established between the Department and Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Fakkar Ram. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere taking of work does not amount to lawful appointment. 5. Based on the available departmental records, Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Fakkar Ram performed casual labour work for limited durations as detailed below: Sr. No. Year No. of days engaged 1. 8/1998-2007 0 2. 2008 100 3. 2009 178 4. 2010 26 5. 2011-2017 0 It is evident that in none of the above years did Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Fakkar Ram complete 240 days of work. Further, such work was not performed against any sanctioned or vacant post but was undertaken purely on a need-based casual basis.” 14. Similarly, in the case of petitioner No.4, namely, Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kartara Ram in the order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P- 10), it is stated as follows:- “4. It is clarified that whatever work was performed by Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kartara Ram was on a purely casual, temporary and seasonal basis, depending upon the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 9 of 17 exigencies of departmental requirements. Such work was not linked to any sanctioned post. No legally valid employer- employee relationship was ever established between the Department and Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kartara Ram. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere taking of work does not amount to lawful appointment. 5. Based on the available departmental records, Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kartara Ram performed casual labour work for limited durations as detailed below: Sr. No. Year No. of days engaged 1. 8/1998-2007 0 2. 2008 92 3. 2009 124 4. 2010 36 5. 2011 24 6. 2012 25 7. 2013-2015 0 8. 2016 53 9. 2017 47 It is evident that in none of the above years did Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kartara Ram complete 240 days of work. Further, such work was not performed against any sanctioned or vacant post but was undertaken purely on a need-based casual basis.” 15. Similarly, in the case of petitioner No.5, namely, Ranbir S/o Sh. Sarda Ram in the order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-11), it is stated as follows:- DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 10 of 17 “4. It is clarified that whatever work was performed by Ranbir S/o Sh. Sarda Ram was on a purely casual, temporary and seasonal basis, depending upon the exigencies of departmental requirements. Such work was not linked to any sanctioned post. No legally valid employer-employee relationship was ever established between the Department and Ranbir S/o Sh. Sarda Ram. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere taking of work does not amount to lawful appointment. 5. Based on the available departmental records, Ranbir S/o Sh. Sarda Ram performed casual labour work for limited durations as detailed below: Sr. No. Year No. of days engaged 1. 1996 141 2. 1997 122 3. 1998 227 4. 1999 137 5. 2000 174 6. 2001-2006 0 7. 2007 25 8. 2008 104 9. 2009 44 10. 2010 52 11. 2011 27 12. 2012-2015 0 13. 2016 52 14. 2017 120 It is evident that in none of the above years did Ranbir S/o Sh. Sarda Ram complete 240 days of work. Further, such work DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 11 of 17 was not performed against any sanctioned or vacant post but was undertaken purely on a need-based casual basis.” 16. A bare reading of the above shows that respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner No.1 has not worked for the period 2012-2015. Petitioner No.2 Suman Bala has not worked with the respondent-Department in the year 8/1998-2015 as well as in the year 2017; and in the year 2016 has worked only for 45 days as shown in Annexure P-8. In Annexure P-9 in the case of petitioner No.3-Ved Parkash, it is shown that petitioner No.3 has not worked at all from the years 2011 to 2017. Petitioner No.4-Rajesh Kumar has not worked for the period 2013 to 2015 as shown in Annexure P-10; and petitioner No.5- Ranbir has not worked at all from 2001 to 2006 and 2012 to 2015 as shown in Annexure P-11. Thus, at no stage in time have any of the petitioners rendered 10 years continuous service with the respondent-Department. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners is unable to demonstrate from the record that the petitioners have rendered 10 years continuous service with the respondent-Department to make them eligible for regular appointment in terms of Jaggo’s case (supra) as well as Joginder’s case (supra). 17. Further, on a direct Court query, it is admitted that no letters of appointment have been produced on record. It is also admitted that the petitioners have never undergone any selection process, or that they are governed by any Service Rules. Even no record relating to the pay scale of the petitioners has been produced. Reliance of learned counsel for the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 12 of 17 petitioners on the Bank Account Statement of the petitioner No.1 (Annexure P-12) is of no help as the entries therein pertain from 07.12.2016 to 30.09.2017 during which time petitioner no.1 is shown to have worked for 52 days and 103 days, respectively. Similarly, Bank Account Statement of petitioner No.2-Suman Bala (Annexure P-13), reflects entries are for the period 02.09.2013 to 13.08.2024. However, in the said statement, learned counsel for the petitioners has been unable to point out any credit entries from the respondent-Department. In any event, it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have not rendered continuous service of 240 days in any year. 18. Reliance upon ID card of petitioner No.4-Rajesh Kumar (Annexure P-14), is also of no help as admittedly, the said ID Card does not bear the signatures of the Issuing Authority. 19. No doubt, Annexure P-2 reflects that the petitioners have been appointed from the year 1998 onwards but from the facts noted above, it is clear that petitioners have not rendered continuous service for 10 years to make them eligible for regularisation. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to letter dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure P-15) written by the respondent-Department to the Incharge of Police Station, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City informing thereby that due to heavy rain on 06.07.2010, records of the respondent- Department has been damaged and is not available. It is accordingly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is for this reason DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 13 of 17 that the service record of the petitioners is not available with the respondent-Department. As such, they are unable to demonstrate that the petitioners have not worked continuously. However, there is no merit to the said argument as the negative proof cannot be imposed upon the respondents. It is for the petitioners to produce their letters of appointment, if any; and to establish that they have received payment in their account accounts from the respondent-Department. Even no details are forthcoming in regard to the selection process if any, undergone by the petitioners. Thus, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have rendered continuous service of 10 years to make them eligible for consideration for regular appointment. 21. In any event, it is not disputed that the petitioners have not undergone any selection process; that they were not appointed against any sanctioned or vacant post; that no Service Rules are applicable to them; or that the work performed by the petitioners is a temporary, occasional, need based and seasonal in nature. In fact, petitioners have even failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to establish that they have worked continuously for 240 days. Clearly therefore, there is no legal master-servant/employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondent-Department. 22. The last argument on behalf of the petitioners that they are seeking regularization under the 01.10.2003 Policy, is also liable to be rejected as firstly, petitioners do not fulfil the requirements to be eligible DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 14 of 17 under the said Policy. Moreover, to take benefit of Policy of 2003, the petitioners have first approached this Court only in the year 2017 by way of CWP-4733-2017 titled as Vinod Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, filed on 06.03.2017. Thus, claim of the petitioners is hit by delay and laches. The said issue of delay stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, holding as under: - “A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged - Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 15 of 17 “23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 16 of 17 a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 23. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's rights.” 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. 25. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22254-2026 (O&M) 17 of 17 26. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 22.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document