IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 116 Sohan Lal State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date he became eligible regularization policies issued by the State of Haryana from time to time. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the regular pay scale and allowances at par with similarly situated re principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', along with all consequential service and monetary benefits, including interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner claims to have been serving the respondent continuously and asserts tha under the applicable regularization policies. It is further the case of CWP-23143-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23143 of 2026 Date of decision : Sohan Lal Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date he became eligible regularization policies issued by the State of Haryana from time to time. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the regular pay scale and allowances at par with similarly situated re principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', along with all consequential service and monetary benefits, including interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner claims to have been serving the respondent continuously and asserts that he satisfies the conditions prescribed under the applicable regularization policies. It is further the case of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 23143 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-28.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA A.P. Bhandari, Advocate Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date he became eligible under the regularization policies issued by the State of Haryana from time to time. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the regular pay scale and allowances at par with similarly situated regular employees on the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work', along with all consequential service and monetary benefits, including interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner claims to have been serving the respondent-Department t he satisfies the conditions prescribed under the applicable regularization policies. It is further the case of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the petitioner that he is entitled to the relief claimed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in and others judgment of this Court in others (CWP No.31304 of 2005), and that denial of the aforesaid benefits is arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. the petitioner was engaged as a Night Protection Watchman (Chowkidar) on DC rates in the Forest Department on 01.05.2007 in Saraswati Range, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kaithal. According to the petitioner, although he was appointed as a Chowkidar, he was also assigned the duties of a Computer Operator during the course of his employment. His services came to be terminated w.e.f. 01.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute culminated in an Award dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P the learned Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the termination of the petitioner was held to be illegal and the respondents were directed to reinstate him in service and months. for regularization under the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P 16.07.2014 (Annexure P which was duly recommended by the competent authorities. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kaithal vide communication CWP-23143-2026 (O & M) the petitioner that he is entitled to the relief claimed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in nd others, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and (CWP No.31304 of 2005), and that denial of the aforesaid benefits is arbitrary and contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was engaged as a Night Protection Watchman (Chowkidar) on DC rates in the Forest Department on 01.05.2007 in Saraswati Range, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kaithal. According to the oner, although he was appointed as a Chowkidar, he was also assigned the duties of a Computer Operator during the course of his employment. His services came to be terminated w.e.f. 01.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute culminated in an Award dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P the learned Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the termination of the petitioner was held to be illegal and the respondents were directed to reinstate him in service and pay arrears of It is further submitted that the petitioner became eligible for regularization under the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P-3) seeking regularization of his services, which was duly recommended by the competent authorities. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kaithal vide communication 2 the petitioner that he is entitled to the relief claimed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, as well as the Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and (CWP No.31304 of 2005), and that denial of the aforesaid Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Night Protection Watchman (Chowkidar) on DC rates in the Forest Department on 01.05.2007 in Saraswati Range, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kaithal. According to the oner, although he was appointed as a Chowkidar, he was also assigned the duties of a Computer Operator during the course of his employment. His services came to be terminated w.e.f. 01.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which culminated in an Award dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the termination of the petitioner was held to be illegal and the respondents were directed to pay arrears of back wages within three the petitioner became eligible for regularization under the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 2). The petitioner submitted a representation dated regularization of his services, which was duly recommended by the competent authorities. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kaithal vide communication VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P North Circle, Panchkula vide let also recommended the petitioner's case for regularization. However, vide order dated 29.04.2021 (Annexure P consideration of the petitioner's claim on account of the pendency of the challenge Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, after the said policy came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he again submitted a detailed representation, which was forwarded by the Range Forest Officer, Saraswati, Kaithal vide letter dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P 10), but no decision has been taken thereon till date. continuous service joining is 0 i.e. more than 10 years continuous service. Thereafter, vide Labour Court Award dated 30.7.2021 he was again reinstated in service and on 16.7.2014 he moved representation for regularization of his services. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner regularization from the date of his eligibility under the applicable regularization policy. He also seeks grant of the regular pay scale and allowances at par with similarly situated reg principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. representation dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P consideration under the Policy dated 18.06.2014 a respondents have failed to extend the afo CWP-23143-2026 (O & M) dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) and the Conservator of Forests, North Circle, Panchkula vide letter dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure P also recommended the petitioner's case for regularization. However, vide order dated 29.04.2021 (Annexure P consideration of the petitioner's claim on account of the pendency of the challenge to the Regularization Policy of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, after the said policy came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he again submitted a detailed representation, which was forwarded by the Range Forest Officer, Saraswati, Kaithal vide letter dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P 10), but no decision has been taken thereon till date. The petitioner further claims that, having rendered continuous service with the respondent joining is 01.5.2007 and his services were terminated on 01.8.2017 i.e. more than 10 years continuous service. Thereafter, vide Labour Court Award dated 30.7.2021 he was again reinstated in service and on 16.7.2014 he moved representation for regularization of his vices. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner regularization from the date of his eligibility under the applicable regularization policy. He also seeks grant of the regular pay scale and allowances at par with similarly situated reg principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. representation dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P consideration under the Policy dated 18.06.2014 a respondents have failed to extend the afo 3 6) and the Conservator of Forests, ter dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure P-7) also recommended the petitioner's case for regularization. However, vide order dated 29.04.2021 (Annexure P-9), the respondents deferred consideration of the petitioner's claim on account of the pendency of to the Regularization Policy of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, after the said policy came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he again submitted a detailed representation, which was forwarded by the Range Forest Officer, Saraswati, Kaithal vide letter dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P- 10), but no decision has been taken thereon till date. The petitioner further claims that, having rendered with the respondent-Department as his date of 1.5.2007 and his services were terminated on 01.8.2017 i.e. more than 10 years continuous service. Thereafter, vide Labour Court Award dated 30.7.2021 he was again reinstated in service and on 16.7.2014 he moved representation for regularization of his vices. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner is entitled to regularization from the date of his eligibility under the applicable regularization policy. He also seeks grant of the regular pay scale and allowances at par with similarly situated regular employees on the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. Petitioner has also submitted representation dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-10) seeking consideration under the Policy dated 18.06.2014 alleging that the respondents have failed to extend the aforesaid benefits despite VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document repeated recommendations and representations, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary present writ petition. 3. petition was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of SLP(C) No.31556 of 2018 Tyagi and others “Yogesh Tyagi and a the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. 1996 of 2024 Haryana” (Annexure P that direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner Supreme Court in granted all consequential benefits. 5. came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810 Haryana and others, 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: CWP-23143-2026 (O & M) repeated recommendations and representations, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of SLP(C) No.31556 of 2018 titled as “State of Haryana vs. Yogesh Tyagi and others” arising out of CWP No.17206 of 2014 Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is pointed out that subsequently, 1996 of 2024 titled as “Madan Singh and others vs. State of ”, decided on 16.04.2026; the ure P-2 herein) have been upheld direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of aforesaid Policy Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), granted all consequential benefits. Learned State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 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. 4 repeated recommendations and representations, the petitioner has writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the that the issue involved in the present petition was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of State of Haryana vs. Yogesh CWP No.17206 of 2014 titled as nother vs. State of Haryana and others” before that subsequently, in Civil Appeal No. Madan Singh and others vs. State of the Policy dated 18.06.2014 herein) have been upheld. It is accordingly prayed direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of Policy upheld by the Hon’ble Madan Singh’s case (supra), and petitioners be 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 disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - 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 idering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23143-2026 (O & M) 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 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 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 each of such 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, 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 (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 s 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 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 regularization. 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 5 State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, 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 elaborately specified. 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 Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, 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 dan Singh (supra). 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 (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 accorded 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 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. disposed of in the above terms. 7. ‘no objection 8. the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Mohammad and others (supra); Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner thereupon within a period of in mind the judgment Supreme Court in 9. July 28, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes CWP-23143-2026 (O & M) period of two weeks from the dat 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits no objection’ to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 04 months in mind the judgment dated 16.04.2026 Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra) Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 6 period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified All pending misc. application(s), if any, also It is prayed that the present writ petition be also counsel for the petitioner submits that he has 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 h a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the for regularization; and pass a speaking order from today, while keeping 6.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble ’s case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document