Raghubir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of writ in nature of “certiorari on quashing the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 as (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondents no.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding ante dated regularization of the service 1.10.2003 instead of 06.04.19902GSI-dated 27.05.1993 w. e. f 01.04.1993 AS (Annexure P-2) along with arrears from 6% interest is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violation of Article 14&16 of Constitution of India. Whereas, the similar situated employees and much junior employee namely Shyam Lal, Savya Ram, Manphool Singh;, Siri Chand, Maha Singh, Sadhu Ram, Abhey Singh, Har Lal etc. regularized their service and granted the benefits of all consequential service benefits from the date of 01.04.1993 vide letter Endst. 1617-87 dated 08.03.1994 as (Annexure P-3). Whereas, the present petitioner is fully entitled and covered all four corners, in view of Paria Singh case(Supra) the interest of justice; AND for issuance of the direction to pay the arrears of difference of pay w.e.f 1.04.1993 to 1.10.2003 actual date of regularization to as per notification 2GSI-06.04.1990-27.05.1993 w.e.f. 01.04.1993 as Policy (Annexure P-2),when the petitioner got the regular pay scale along with in the interest 6% pm with all consequential service benefit.”

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although petitioner has been working in the respondent-Department since 1985 as daily wager (Class-IV), against sanctioned post under the State Cattle Breeding Project, Hisar, yet services of the petitioner have not been regularized from due date. Learned counsel contends that as per Regularization Policy dated 1.4.1993, daily wage employees, who have completed 5 years or more service as on 01.03.1993, and were in service on 31.03.1993 are liable to be regularized. Thus, petitioner is entitled for regularisation from 1.4.1993.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the order dated 08.03.1994 (Annexure P-3), there is no condition for employee to have completed 240 days of service in one year. As such, case of the petitioner for regularisation from 1.4.1993 cannot be rejected on the ground that petitioner has not rendered 240 days of service. It is contended that even otherwise the said reason is incorrect as, petitioner has rendered more than 240 days service in each calendar year. Thus, he is liable to be regularised from due date.

It is submitted that Petitioner had even been terminated from service. As such, petitioner had approached the Labour Court; and vide Award dated 26.04.2000 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was ordered to be taken back in service w.e.f. 15.05.2000 by giving him benefit of previous service but without backwages.

It is further pointed out that similarly situated persons who are juniors to the petitioner, have been regularized vide Annexure P-3. It is contended that therefore, impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioner for regularization of service w.e.f. 01.04.1993 is unsustainable. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and following prayer be accepted: -

Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions of the petitioner and submitted that impugned order is a speaking and reasoned order. Furthermore, there is no basis to the claim made by the petitioner as the petitioner has not rendered 240 days of service in any of the years. It is further pointed out that vide Instructions dated 18.03.1994, it has been clarified that service of 240 days in one calendar year is required for consideration of claim for regularization. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.

Besides the facts as noted above, the record further reveals that petitioner had previously approached this Court by way of CWP-10017-2011 titled as Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others seeking regularization of his service. The said CWP came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge. Against the aforesaid dismissal, petitioner had preferred LPA-1705-2013 titled as Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 21.01.2015 (Annexure P-4), the said LPA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. It is in pursuance to the said direction, that the services of the petitioner had been regularized vide order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) w.e.f. 01.10.2003, by giving benefit of past service but without back wages in accordance with the Policy dated 01.10.2003.

Thereafter petitioner had moved Representation dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) claiming regularization from 01.04.1993. Petitioner served legal notice dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) to re-fix regularization of the petitioner from 01.04.1993. Thereafter, petitioner had filed CWP-39349-2025 titled as Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others “for issuance of writ in nature of Mandamus, respondent department not to decide the representation dated 04.12.2024 as (Annexure P-6) & legal notice dated on 25.06.2025 as (Annexure P-7) regarding re-fixed/ Ante dated regularization 1.10.2003 instead of 1.04.1993 vide notification dated 2GSI-06.04.1990 vide dated 31.12-1990 as (Annexure P-2) & Policy dated on 27.05.1993 w.e.f 01.04.1993 as (Annexure P-3) along with all consequential service benefits.” The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-8) with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide Representation dated 04.12.2024 as well as legal notice dated 25.06.2025 after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. In pursuance thereto, the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-10) has been passed; whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization of service w.e.f. 01.04.1993 has been rejected.

The first contention of the petitioner is that as per Instructions dated 01.04.1993 (Annexure P-2), it is not stipulated that service of 240 days should be completed in one year to be eligible for regularization. The said argument is without merit as, as pointed out by learned State Counsel, the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana had issued Instructions dated 18.03.1994; whereby it is stipulated that break period for the worker should not exceed 30 days and he must have completed 240 days in one calendar year. Clearly therefore, petitioner was required to have rendered 240 days service in one calendar year.

However, the record reviews that the petitioner has not done. In the impugned order, respondents have given details of the number of days of service rendered by the petitioner as a daily wager from the year 1985 upto 1996 as follows: -

From the above, it is clear that petitioner has never worked regularly and never completed 240 days in one calendar year. As such, petitioner cannot claim regularisation from 1.4.1993.

Furthermore, as per the Regularization Policy dated 01.04.1993/27.05.1993 (Annexure P-2), there was clear condition that worker should have completed minimum 5 years service before 01.04.1993 for consideration for regularization. The said Instructions were further clarified by the Instructions dated 18.03.1994, as per which, further stipulation was added that worker should also have completed 240 working days in one year.

From the above table, it is clear that petitioner has neither completed 5 years service before 1993; and has not even put into 240 working days in each calendar year. Clearly therefore, petitioner is not entitled for regularization.

The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was never present for duty from the month of June 1996 till April 2000. Thereafter, petitioner had filed Reference before the Labour Court at Hisar which was compromised on 26.04.2000 (Annexure P-1), as per which, it was mutually agreed that petitioner will be taken into service w.e.f. 15.05.2000. Thereafter, it was only in the light of the judgment dated 21.01.2015 passed by this Court in LPA-1705-2013 titled as Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-4), that petitioner was granted ante dated regularization w.e.f. 01.10.2003 vide regularization order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) by giving benefit of service but without back wages.

It is further to be noted that thereafter petitioner remained silent for 8 whole years; and suddenly in the year 2024, petitioner moved Representation dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) now seeking regularization from 01.04.1993. Clearly therefore, claim of the petitioner is not maintainable not just for the factual reasons narrated herein above, but also for the reason that this claim for regularization from 01.04.1993 was available to the petitioner at the time of filing of first CWP-10017-2011 which came to be dismissed. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the said claim was agitated before the Division Bench while disposing LPA-1705-2013 titled as Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-4).

Moreover, if petitioner was aggrieved of the grant of regularization from 01.10.2003 vide order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent-Department, the petitioner should have approached the Court at that time. However, petitioner has moved representation only after eight years in the year 2024. Within 6 months thereafter, petitioner served legal notice dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) and ultimately filed CWP-39349-2025 titled as Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others now seeking regularization from 01.04.1993. Thus, claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings.

Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.