AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
This order of mine shall dispose of the above-noted writ petitions as they involve identical questions of law and arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.8029 of 2017.
Prayer in all the abovementioned writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in view of the Government policy dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P2).
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contend that the petitioners are working with the respondent-department since 2006 as discernible from Annexure P1 without being any break in service. Learned counsel further contend that the Government of Haryana has taken a policy decision vide notification dated 07.07.2014/09.07.2014 (Annexure P2) to regularize the employees who have completed 10 years of service. The petitioners fulfil all the terms and conditions of the policy (Annexure P2) and filed various representations before the respondent-department to consider their claim in terms of the said policy and also served a final demand notice dated 11.02.2017 (Annexure P4), which remains unheeded. The respondents’ action not to regularize the services of the petitioners, is illegal and liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that vide order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court the present writ petitions alongwith other connected matters were ordered to be adjourned sine die to await the decision in SLP filed against the Division Bench judgment in Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2018(3) SCT 181. Learned counsel submit that now Hon’ble the Supreme Court has decided a bunch of cases including Yogesh Tyagi case (supra), lead case being Madan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 SCC Online (SC) 628 and in view thereof, the present writ petitions have been listed for hearing by the Registry.
Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of Madan Singh’s case (supra) particularly para 25(b) to submit that the services of the employees, who were continuing in service in view of the notifications dated 07.07.2014, were protected and they were entitled to the lowest pay scale. As such the claim of the present petitioners is required to be considered in terms of para 25(b) of Madan Singh’s case (supra).
Learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid factual position and submits that he has no objection in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment passed in Madan Singh’s case (supra) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra) quashed the notifications dated 16.06.2014, 18.06.2014 and the two notifications dated 07.07.2014 issued by the Government of Haryana. However, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) struck down the regularization policy contained in the notifications dated 07.07.2014 being arbitrary and illegal, while upholding the validity of the notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:—
“25.Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31.05.2018 stands partly modified as under:
(a)It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the High Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside. The intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 shall be entitled to the reliefs flowing from such declaration, subject to verification by the competent authority.
(b)It is declared that the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 issued with a view to regularise the services of Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees with the State of Haryana are arbitrary and illegal. They are accordingly struck down. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' ad hoc employees, who have secured benefit of these Notifications and who continue in service shall not be disturbed. They shall, however, be placed in the lowest pay scale of the post held by them. The intervenors, who are similarly placed as those Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' ad hoc employees, who are presently in service in view of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs as referred to above, subject to verification by the competent authority.
(c)The employees, who had approached the High Court and who were granted liberty to take steps after the present batch of appeals were decided, are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment.”
(emphasis added)
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, all the three writ petitions are disposed of accordingly and petitioners are directed to file fresh representation(s) within a period of four weeks and respondent No.2-Director Elementary/Secondary Education, is directed to consider and decide their claim in accordance with para 25, particularly para 25(b) of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) by passing a speaking order after affording them an opportunity of hearing, within a period of six weeks thereafter from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioners.
CM No.13751-CWP of 2025 in CWP-10112-2018 has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for impleading the applicants as petitioners No.902 to 915.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties, the instant application is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to raise their claim by filing a representation before respondent No.2 and in case such a representation is submitted, respondent No.2-Director, Secondary Education is directed to consider and decide the claim of the applicants in terms of aforesaid directions issued in the present writ petitions.
Needless to observe, in case the petitioners are found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of connected writ petitions.