Rajender vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.(Oral)

The present writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana whereby order dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure P-3), vide which the service of the petitioner was regularised, has been withdrawn without issuance of any show cause notice.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was initially appointed on 11.09.1995 on the post of Electrician on contract basis in the respondent-Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed against the temporary post of Peon with the respondent-Department, as discernible from order dated 08.02.2008 (Anneuxre P-1). It is contended that many juniors of the petitioner were regularised by the respondent-Department on the post of Peon w.e.f. 01.10.2003 vide order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner made a representation to the competent authority to grant him the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner from the date of regularisation of his juniors. Vide order dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure P-3), the competent authority, with the concurrence of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, regularised the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2003 The said order also categorically mentioned that the petitioner will be entitled to seniority from the date his junior- Sonu Kumar and others were promoted to the post of Peon.

Learned Senior counsel further submits that subsequently, the petitioner sought the benefit of Old Pension Scheme and made a representation on 17.02.2017 (Annexure P-6) to the Director General, School Education. A reminder qua the same was also submitted by the petitioner on 29.09.2017 (Annexure P-7). In the meantime, some other employees of the respondent-Department filed CWP No.23818 of 2015 titled as ‘Roshan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and another’ before this Court, seeking regularisation w.e.f. 01.10.2003. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2015 (Annexure P-8) disposed of the said writ petition(s) with a direction to the respondent-State to pass a speaking order on the legal notice submitted by them. Under the garb of compliance, the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana vide impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-10) withdrew the order dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 01.10.2003. He argues that it is trite law that the successor-in-office is neither competent nor authorised to revisit the decision of a predecessor in the absence of any Rules to this effect, especially after lapse of considerable period of time.

Learned Senior counsel also places reliance on the judgement rendered by this Court in CWP No.2683 of 2023 titled as ‘Vinod Kumar vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and others’ decided on 26.02.2026 and submits that the petitioner’s regularisation has no nexus with the policy dated 18.06.2014 (hereinafter ‘Policy of 2014’), which was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.17206 of 2014 titled as ‘Yogesh Tyagi and others vs. State of Haryana’ decided on 31.05.2018. Be that as it may, the reliance on the judgment of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) to deny the said benefit to the petitioner is also misfounded as the Policy of 2014 was ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2026 INSC 379.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State reiterates the grounds taken in the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-10) and submits that the regularisation of the petitioner with retrospective effect is not permissible under any applicable policy, as such, the competent authority was well within its exercise to review the illegal decision granting the said undue benefit to the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, it transpires that the petitioner was regularised by the respondent-Department on the post of Peon w.e.f. 01.10.2003 vide order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by Director, Secondary Education, Haryana. The said order also stated that the seniority of the petitioner shall be computed from the date Sonu Kumar and other employees junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Peon. However, it appears that the said order has been withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-10) also passed by Director, Secondary Education, Haryana.

It is trite law that once a benefit has been granted by a competent authority, the same cannot be withdrawn by its successor-in-office under the garb of review. A reference in this regard can be made to the judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, and another vs. Madan Lal Chopra, Luggage Guard, Northern Railway and others in LPA No. 43 of 1969 decided on 03.09.1971 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gaganpreet Singh and others vs. Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd and others, 2025(3) Law Herald 2343, which has been upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.3586 of 2025 decided on 18.02.2026. It would also be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by the Privy Council in R.T. Rangachari vs. Secretary of State AIR 1937 PC 27 wherein it was observed that when a duly competent government officials has honestly arrived at one conclusion, their successor-in-office cannot purport to reconsider the matter in order to arrive at totally different decision after the same has been acted upon and is in effective operation. Further, the successor-in-office can only review a duly passed order conferring certain service benefits if the same was passed without jurisdiction or in violation of the applicable statutory rules or, if the said order is vitiated by fraud etc. Such exercise must not be indulged in a casual, whimsical manner, merely motivated by prejudice.

Further still, the case of regularisation of the petitioner does not bear any nexus with the policies struck down by Yogesh Tyagi (supra), which however, in arguendo, were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh (supra). As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-Department has erred in passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-10), withdrawing the benefit of regularisation from the petitioner.

In view of foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-10) is set aside. The respondents/competent authorities are directed to release all the retiral dues payable to the petitioner in terms of judgement rendered by this Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019, as the past service rendered by the petitioner being ad hoc employee is required included in calculation of qualifying service with respect to grant of pensionary benefits. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of lapse of two months from retirement of the petitioner till its actual realisation, within a period of three months. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any other interest prior to his date of retirement.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.