Reena Saini vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioner on a regular basis in terms of the Haryana Government Policy/Notification dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P4), which has been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide judgment/order dated 16.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, titled as Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, and to grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and release the consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary, in terms of Instructions No.6/6/2025-5HR-I dated 11.08.2026 (Annexure P12) issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana within a stipulated period alongwith all other consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Data Entry Operator on contractual basis in Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal. The State Government issued instructions dated 28.07.2014 and 21.08.2014 clarifying that the policy dated 18.06.2014 would also be applicable to Boards and Corporations and that Data Entry Operators could be considered for regularization against vacant posts of Clerks. Pursuant thereto, a Committee constituted for the purpose recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization vide its proceedings dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was again considered and she was found eligible for regularization vide report dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure P-8). However, despite the aforesaid recommendations, her services were not regularized. Learned counsel submits that though the regularization policy dated 18.06.2014 was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2018(3) SCT 181, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 628, has upheld the regularization policy dated 18.06.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P11) seeking regularization/absorption of her services in terms of the policy dated 18.06.2014 and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra).

At this stage, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present writ petition is treated as a comprehensive representation and a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide her claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a stipulated period, in the light of the judgment in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and instructions dated 11.08.2026 (Annexure P12) issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent-University submit that they have no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of instructions dated 11.08.2026 (Annexure P12), by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. Needless to observe, in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law.