1 CWP-27560-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-27560-2026 Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 SURENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS SURENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS SURENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS SURENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ....Petitioners VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER ….Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) 1. That the present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in terms of the policy of the State instead of 2014 pursuant to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, along with all consequential benefits with interest @12% per annum on the arrears accrued thereon. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed in the respondent-University between the years 1996-98 on muster roll/daily-wage basis. The State of Haryana issued a regularization policy on 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-7) for Class IV daily-wage employees, contemplating regularization of those PARUL VERMA 2026.08.27 17:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 CWP-27560-2026 employees who had completed three years of service on the stipulated cut-off date. The services of the petitioners were illegally terminated by the respondent-University on 01.07.2007. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute and the learned Labour Court passed an award in favour of the petitioners. This Court, vide consolidated judgment dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) in CWP CWP CWP CWP----19990 19990 19990 19990----2012 2012 2012 2012 titled Vice Vice Vice Vice----Chancellor, Chancellor, Chancellor, Chancellor, Kurukshetra University vs. Raj Rani & Another Kurukshetra University vs. Raj Rani & Another Kurukshetra University vs. Raj Rani & Another Kurukshetra University vs. Raj Rani & Another, held the termination illegal and directions were issued to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The petitioners were also ordered to be considered for regularization from the date when their juniors were regularized. The LPA filed by the University was dismissed on 30.01.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the SLP filed by the University was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.04.2017 (Annexure P-3). 2.1. He further refers to Annexures P-4 and P-5 and submits that the regularization order was passed only after the petitioners filed a contempt petition. However, it was made subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi Yogesh Tyagi Yogesh Tyagi Yogesh Tyagi and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP----17206 17206 17206 17206----2014 2014 2014 2014, was set aside. Further, the petitioners’ regularization has no concern with the policy of the year 18.06.2014, which was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi (supra) Yogesh Tyagi (supra) Yogesh Tyagi (supra) Yogesh Tyagi (supra). The judgment rendered in Raj Raj Raj Raj Rani’s case (supra) Rani’s case (supra) Rani’s case (supra) Rani’s case (supra) directed regularization of the petitioners in terms of the applicable regularization policy that was issued on 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-7). Moreover, the Yogesh Tyagi (supra) Yogesh Tyagi (supra) Yogesh Tyagi (supra) Yogesh Tyagi (supra) judgment rendered PARUL VERMA 2026.08.27 17:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 CWP-27560-2026 by the Division Bench of this Court has been set aside and the regularization policy of the Government of Haryana was upheld. The Advocate General appeared before the Division Bench in LPA LPA LPA LPA----1810 of 1810 of 1810 of 1810 of 2025 2025 2025 2025 titled Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, and directed fresh consideration of individual claims for regularization in the light of the principles laid down in Madan Singh’s Madan Singh’s Madan Singh’s Madan Singh’s case (supra). case (supra). case (supra). case (supra). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by the respondents/competent authority in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra) Madan Singh (supra) Madan Singh (supra) Madan Singh (supra), in a time-bound manner, by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 4. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and to save judicial time and litigation costs of the respondents, the present writ petition is decided in limine with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra) Madan Singh (supra) Madan Singh (supra) Madan Singh (supra). A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. PARUL VERMA 2026.08.27 17:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 CWP-27560-2026 Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.08.2026 (HARPREET SINGH (HARPREET SINGH (HARPREET SINGH (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) BRAR) BRAR) BRAR) parul verma JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.08.27 17:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment