AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner, without assigning any cogent or justifiable reason, despite similarly situated employees of the respondent-Department having already been granted the benefit of regularization vide order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-10) under the same Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2), and despite the judgment dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-16) rendered by this Court, as also the petitioner fulfilling the requisite terms and conditions prescribed under the said Policy; and/or further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in accordance with the Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2), particularly when, vide order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-15), this Court has held employees having completed ten years or more of contractual service to be entitled to consideration for regularization and the petitioner’s name has also been recommended for regularization under the said Policy; and further, for issuance of appropriate directions to grant the petitioner all consequential service and financial benefits flowing from such regularization, and to restrain the respondents from replacing the petitioner by another contractual employee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the respondent-Department invited applications vide advertisement dated 18.06.2009 for appointment against sanctioned posts of Sub Divisional Clerk (SDC) on contractual basis. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner, along with nine other employees, was appointed and posted at Bhiwani Block. The contractual engagement of the petitioner was thereafter extended from time to time. It is further submitted that on 18.06.2014, the respondents formulated a Policy for regularization of services (Annexure P-2), whereby employees having rendered three years of satisfactory and continuous service and being in service as on 18.06.2014 were made eligible for consideration for regularization. The petitioner, being eligible under the said Policy, applied for regularization. However, his services were subsequently terminated vide order dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure P-4). The said order of termination was thereafter recalled and the petitioner was reinstated in service, whereafter his contractual engagement has continued by way of successive extensions. Learned counsel contends that employees junior to the petitioner were retained in service and subsequently regularized, and have even been granted promotions. It is further submitted that the Policy dated 18.06.2014 has been considered and upheld in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. Learned counsel submits that, in view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to consideration of his claim for regularization.
At this stage, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his claim for regularization in accordance with the applicable policy and the law laid down in Madan Singh (supra).
Notice of motion.
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that she has ‘no objection’ in case the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, is accepted. It is also submitted by learned State counsel that the service tenure of the petitioner needs to be ascertained as to whether he has rendered continuous and satisfactory service to make him eligible for regularization.
It is also pointed out by learned State counsel that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-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. 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 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.
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 respect of 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 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 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 period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified 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 that he has ‘no objection’ to the same.
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 Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra).
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.