AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
This order of mine shall dispose of the above-noted three writ petitions as they involve identical questions of law and arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.3639 of 2020.
Prayer in all the abovementioned writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services and to decide the legal notice dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure P6 in CWP No.3639 of 2020 and Annexure P7 in CWP Nos.3694 & 3696 of 2020) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period. It is alleged that despite the petitioners having rendered more than 12-13 years of service, their claim for regularization has not been considered, whereas similarly situated employees in certain districts, having rendered comparatively lesser service, have been regularized. A further plea has been raised that the case of the petitioners is covered by the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No.37236 of 2019, titled as Kiran Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-5).
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that vide order dated 11.02.2020 passed by this Court, the present writ petitions were ordered to be adjourned sine die to await the decision in SLP against the Division Bench judgment in Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2018(3) SCT 181. Learned counsel further submits that now Hon’ble the Supreme Court has decided a bunch of cases, lead case being Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 SCC Online (SC) 628 including Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra), in view thereof, the present writ petitions have been listed for hearing by the Registry.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners and decide the legal notice(s) dated 25.10.2019 and 07.11.2019, in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) as well as in Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to them.
Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgments passed in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and in Jaggo’s case (supra) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided a bunch of cases on 16.04.2026 and Madan Singh’s case (supra) is the lead case, wherein regularization policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: --
“25.Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31.05.2018 stands partly modified as under:
(a)It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the High Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside. The intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 shall be entitled to the reliefs flowing from such declaration, subject to verification by the competent authority.
xxx xxx xxx
(c)The employees, who had approached the High Court and who were granted liberty to take steps after the present batch of appeals were decided, are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment.”
In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, all three writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Director General of School Education, Haryana to examine the claim of the petitioners and decide the same in terms of judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) as well as in Jaggo’s case (supra) by passing a speaking order after affording him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioners.
Needless to observe, in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
A photocopy of order be placed on the files of connected cases.