AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM-10443-2026
Prayer in the application filed under Section 151 CPC is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization considering the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-A).
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
CWP-15631-2021
Present writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services along with all consequential benefits and reliefs in the light of policy decision dated 18.06.2014 and 14.08.2014 (Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively) or in the alternative in the light of policy decision dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P-4).
It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners who are 06 in number were appointed as Canal Patwari(s) and have joined the service as per details provided in tabulated form in para No. 2 of the petition. It is accordingly prayed that they are eligible for regularization in terms of policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) whereby it has been stipulated that all the employees who have complete 03 years of service as on 28.05.2014 are entitled to regularization. It is submitted that all the 06 petitioners are also covered under the policy dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure P-2) which stipulates that all the employees who have completed 03 years of service as on 30.06.2014 are also entitled for regularization. In this regard, the petitioners have also served final demand notice dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure P-6) upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularization. However, in the meantime, the Polices dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and 07.07.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of CWP-17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Policies were quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the Policies dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that petitioners would be satisfied if at this stage a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) as well as in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and petitioners be granted all consequential benefits.
Perusal of the case file reveals that notice is yet to be issued in the present case.
Notice of motion.
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Learned counsel for the State 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 each of the petitioners needs to be ascertained as to whether they have rendered continuous and satisfactory service to make them eligible for regularization.
Learned State counsel points out 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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.