AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize her service in terms of policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) and also to grant all consequential benefits etc.
Perusal of the case file reveals that vide order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Predecessor Bench, the present writ petition was ordered to be adjourned sine die to await the decision in SLP No. 27394 of 2018 arising out of Yogesh Tyagi vs. State of Haryana: 2018(3) SCT
Now, the issue involved in the present case has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its recent judgment dated 16.04.2026 in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana: Law Finder Doc Id # 2884394. As such, the present petition is revived and taken up for hearing today itself.
It is contention of the petitioner that she was appointed as Sweeper on part time basis vide Appointment Letter dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure P-1). It has been further averred that the petitioner was appointed through the process of law and on a regular vacant post through Employment Exchange. Since then the petitioner has been regularly working as such without any break to the satisfaction of the respondents against a regular and sanctioned post. As such, the petitioner is entitled for regularization in terms of policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra). The petitioner has also served a legal notice dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) in this regard upon the respondents.
There is no representation despite the case having been called twice. As such, the present petition is disposed of in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner as the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the ratio of aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that he has ‘no objection’ in case, the prayer made by petitioner in the instant writ petition for consideration of her claim for regularization in terms of Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) 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 she has rendered continuous and satisfactory service to make her eligible for regularization.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for the State that the said issue came up 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.
Accordingly without commenting on the merits of the case and with the consent of learned State counsel, 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 decide the legal notice dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) served upon them by the petitioner; 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.