Allowed¶23

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2025CWP/8101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of service; show cause notice dated 12.03.2019 set aside; writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; State of Haryana and Others; threat to proceed against petitioner; illegal termination; fundamental rights; one time measure; length of service; Garima Jindal vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.; CWP-13384-2011 (06.08.2012); LPA1775-2012 (09.11.2012); SLP(C) No. 1493/2013 Supreme Court; petitions allowed; impugned show cause notices quashed; pending applications disposed; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Justice Sandeep Moudgil; decided 19.09.2025; common order nine writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; impugned show cause notice(s) dated 12.03.2019 set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitions allowed; impugned show cause notice(s) dated 12.03.2019 set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notices/show cause notices dated 12.03.2019, by which the respondents threatened to proceed against the petitioners and terminate their services in violation of fundamental rights, should be set aside.

¶17

Court's answer

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the State (that the State is not inclined to dispense with the petitioners' services considering the length of service rendered, as a one-time measure, in consonance with the Garima Jindal judgments) as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Garima Jindal's case, the nine writ petitions are allowed and the impugned show cause notice(s) are set aside.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Sandeep Moudgil, J., oral) disposing of nine writ petitions (CWP-8101-2019 and eight connected CWP (O&M) matters) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notice dated 12.03.2019 whereby the respondents threatened to proceed against the petitioners and terminate their services in violation of fundamental rights. Learned counsel for the State informed the Court that, considering the length of the service rendered by them, the State was not inclined to dispense with the petitioners' services — a one-time measure in consonance with the Garima Jindal decisions: judgment dated 06.08.2012 in CWP-13384-2011 ('Garima Jindal vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and anr.'), judgment dated 09.11.2012 in LPA1775-2012 ('Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and anr. vs. Garima Jindal'), and the Supreme Court judgment in SLP(C) No. 1493/2013 ('Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. vs. Garima Jindal and anr.'). Acting on that submission and the Supreme Court judgment in Garima Jindal's case (supra), the Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned show cause notice(s), and disposed of pending application(s), if any.

¶1

212 (9 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

	D CWP-8101-2019 (O&M)	ECIDED ON: 19.09.2025
MAHESH KUMAR	VERSUS	.....PETITIONER(S)
STATE OF HARYA	NA AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP-10534-2019 (O&M)
VED PARKASH		.....PETITIONER(S)
	VERSUS
STATE OF HARYAN	A AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP-19057-2019 (O&M)
SUSHIL KUMAR		.....PETITIONER(S)
	VERSUS
STATE OF HARYAN	A AND OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP-10601-2019 (O&M)
RAJ KUMAR		.....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-8101-2019 (O&M) and connected cases

¶5

¶6

PARHLAD	CWP	-15937-2019 (O&M) VERSUS	.....PETITIONER(S)
STATE OF HAR	YANA AND CWP	OTHERS -15810-2019 (O&M)	.....RESPONDENT(S)
PRADEEP AND O	RS.		.....PETITIONER(S)
		VERSUS
STATE OF HAR	YANA AND	OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP	-15957-2019 (O&M)
SANDEEP			.....PETITIONER(S)
		VERSUS
STATE OF HAR	YANA AND	OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)
	CWP	-16019-2019 (O&M)
MANISH			.....PETITIONER(S)
		VERSUS
STATE OF HAR	YANA AND CWP	OTHERS -14947-2019 (O&M)	.....RESPONDENT(S)
AMARJEET AND	ORS.		.....PETITIONER(S)
		VERSUS
STATE OF HAR	YANA AND	OTHERS	.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

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

¶8

CWP-8101-2019 (O&M) and connected cases

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

8101-2019.

¶17

This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notice dated 12.03.2019 whereby the respondent are threatening to proceed against the petitioner and illegally terminate the service of the petitioner in violation of fundamental right of the petitioners.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

CWP-8101-2019 (O&M) and connected cases

¶21

¶22

Nigam Ltd. vs. Garima Jindal and anr .’

¶23

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 show cause notice (s) are hereby set aside.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

case(s).

¶28

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

¶29

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

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manju Choudhary Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.