AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the respective posts of Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operators (ADEOs), Counsellors, Data Analysts and Social Workers, presently manned by them, in terms of the policy decision dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) and Notification dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-5), without insisting upon fulfilment of the condition of 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006, particularly in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others, reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, as well as the judgment dated 31.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 31304 of 2025 titled Joginder v. State of Haryana and another, along with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operators (ADEOs), Counsellors, Data Analysts and Social Workers on contract basis from the year 2011 and 2012 (shown in para 4 at page 8 of the paper book). The petitioners have been working continuously and without any break since then till date and has completed more than 10 years of service. As such, claims of the petitioners for regularization is fully covered by the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme in Jaggo’s case (supra). In this regard, the petitioners have also moved a representation dated 09.2.2026 (Annexure P-7) upon the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied at this stage if the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners for regularization in a time bound manner, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra).
Notice of motion.
Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents and submits that he has ‘no objection’ in case, the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage, is accepted. It is also submitted that the service tenure of the petitioners needs to be ascertained as to whether they have rendered continuous and satisfactory service to make them eligible for regularization.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the present petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/Competent Authority, concerned, to forthwith consider and decide the claim of the petitioners for regularization by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, while keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra).
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.