Gurpreet Kaur vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter memo No.TE/8/62/admin- 4/policy/regularization25/ dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service in view of Haryana Government Policy 2014, has been rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner violating the principles of natural justice and Haryana Government Policy 2014, which is against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further prayer has been made for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner on regular basis in view the Haryana Government policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others whereby the Haryana Government Notification dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld, in the interest of justice. Further prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and release the arrears of salary with all consequential benefit, as the persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner have already been regularized as per the policy, in view of Instructions No. 6/6/2025-5HR-I dated 11.08.2026 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P7) on the ground of not fulfilling the condition of continuation in service. Learned counsel further submits that the medical leave granted to the petitioner was treated as break in service, which is contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.15136 of 2015, titled as Darshna Rani v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.09.2022. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Darshna Rani’s case (supra) while considering the Haryana regularisation policy, specifically held that the stipulated break has to be an intentional break and not a forced break. In the said case, the petitioner had met with an accident, remained hospitalised and thereafter remained on medical leave. It has been held that such forced absence on medical grounds could not be used as an impediment to deny regularisation and was liable to be condoned. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner moved a representation on 29.04.2026 (Annexure P11) to consider her case in view of notification dated 18.06.2014 of the Government of Haryana as the claim of similarly situated employees has been considered in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra).

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the present writ petition is treated as a comprehensive representation and the competent authority is directed to consider and decide their claim in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) as well as the benefit granted to similarly situated persons (Annexure P10).

Learned State counsel while opposing the claim of the petitioner, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.2 to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), in accordance with law.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and also keeping in view the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.15136 of 2015, titled as Darshna Rani v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.09.2022, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. Needless to observe, in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously to them, in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.