Allowed¶19

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2025CWP/11734/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions under Articles 226/227 allowed; termination-of-services orders dated 04.08.2020 set aside; State of Haryana; continuance in service based on length of service as a one-time measure; Garima Jindal line of authorities followed (CWP-13384-2011 dt. 06.08.2012; LPA-1775-2012 dt. 09.11.2012; SLP(C) 1493/2013, Supreme Court); consequential benefits; common order disposing connected CWP matters; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sandeep Moudgil, J., 19.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; impugned order dated 04.08.2020 terminating the petitioners' services set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶19

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

217 (4 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

	D CWP-11734-2020 (O&M)	ECIDED ON: 19.09.2025
RAKESH KUMAR		.....PETITIONER(S)
	VERSUS
STATE OF HARYA	NA AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP-11764-2020 (O&M)
PRAMJEET		.....PETITIONER(S)
	VERSUS
STATE OF HARYAN	A AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP-11786-2020 (O&M)
PARDEEP		.....PETITIONER(S)
	VERSUS
STATE OF HARYAN	A AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP-11799-2020 (O&M)
PAWAN YADAV		.....PETITIONER(S)
	VERSUS
STATE OF HARYAN	A AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶3

Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶4

CWP-11734-2020 (O&M) and connected cases

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

¶7

Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶8

Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶9

¶10

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶11

Vide this Common order this Court shall dispose of above said nine writ petitions as common questions of facts and law are involved therein.

¶12

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-

¶13

11734-2020.

¶14

This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2020 whereby the services of the petitioner was ordered to be terminated and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State informs the Court that the State is not inclined to dispense with the services of the petitioners considering the length of the service rendered by them, though this decision of State is a one time measure and also in consonance with the judgement dated 06.08.2012 passed by this Court in CWP-13384-2011 titled as ‘ Garima Jindal vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and anr. , judgment dated 09.11.2012 passed by this Court in LPA1775-2012 titled as ‘ Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and anr. vs. Garima Jindal ’ and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s). 1493/2013 titled as ‘ Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. vs. Garima Jindal and anr .’

¶16

Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶17

CWP-11734-2020 (O&M) and connected cases

¶18

¶19

In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the State as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Garima Jindal’s case (supra), the petitions are hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 04.08.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶20

Ordered accordingly.

¶21

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

¶22

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected

¶23

case(s).

¶24

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 19.09.2025 JUDGE anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶25

Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jagseer Ram and Another Vs Bbmb through Its Chairman and Others

H.C. Ranvir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manju Choudhary Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.