Sunehri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Sunehri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of, with consent of parties, in terms of the order dated 23.04.2026 in Aas Mohammad and others; State of Haryana/concerned Department directed to accord fresh consideration to the petitioner's claim for regularization and pass a speaking order within 06 months, keeping in mind the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 16.04.2026 in Madan Singh's case; pending applications disposed of. No monetary relief awarded by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization, primarily on the ground that she did not possess the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Beldar, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the order dated 23.04.2026 passed in Aas Mohammad and others, with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioners for regularization.

Key takeaways

The State is to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's claim for regularization within a period of 06 months from the date of the order, keeping in mind the judgment dated 16.04.2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh's case.ratio¶42
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Regularization of daily-wage employee — Petitioner (Beldar appointed October 1988, orally terminated January 1997) reinstated by Award dated 12.08.2005 of Labour Court, Rohtak with continuity of service and 50% back wages from 21.10.1999; regularized as Beldar vide order dated 01.08.2014 under Haryana Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 (amended 14.08.2014); services withdrawn/de-regularized vide order dated 25.08.2014 after notification dated 20.08.2014; on earlier writ (CWP No.22754 of 2014) this Court vide common judgment dated 29.11.2014 in Vikas v. State of Haryana directed reconsideration after hearing; claim rejected vide impugned order dated 06.05.2015 for want of prescribed educational qualification; petitioner also claimed parity with junior Sh. Khazan Singh, regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996. Petition had been adjourned sine die on 05.02.2020 awaiting SLP(C) No.33265 of 2018. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 (decided 16.04.2026) upheld the 2014 Policy, and a Division Bench of this Court in Aas Mohammad v. State of Haryana, LPA-1810-2025 (decided 23.04.2026) directed fresh consideration of individual claims with speaking orders within six months: HELD, with consent of parties, writ petition disposed of in terms of Aas Mohammad; State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to petitioner's claim for regularization and pass a speaking order within 06 months, keeping in mind Madan Singh; parity and vested-right contentions left open for fresh consideration; pending applications disposed of.

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205

CWP No.13693 of 2015 (O & M) Date of decision :-14.07.2026

Sunheri Devi

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advoc a te for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D A G, Haryana.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed th e present writ petition under Articles 2 26/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure P-10), w hereby his claim for regulari z ation of service has been rejected. T he petitioner further seeks iss u ance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to continue h im in service as Beldar in pursuanc e of the regularization order da t ed 01.08.2014 (Annexure P- 4), along with all consequential service b enefits, including seniority. In the alt e rnative, the petitioner seeks a d i rection to the respondents to regulariz e his services with effect from t he date on which his junior, Sh. Khaz a n Singh, was regularized, i.e. 0 1.02.1996, in terms of order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) , tog e ther with all consequential benefits.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) 2

It is inter alia submitted b y learned counsel for the petitione r that the petitioner was initiall y appointed as a Beldar on daily-wa g e basis in October, 1988 agai n st a sanctioned vacant post and conti n uously discharged her duties. I t is averred that her services were or a lly terminated in January, 1997 without assigning any reason. A ggrieved thereby, the petitione r raised an industrial dispute by servi n g a demand notice, pursuan t to which the appropriate Govern m ent made a reference to the In d ustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, R o htak vide Reference No.451 d a ted 10.05.2001. The Labour Court, R o htak, vide Award dated 12.08.2 0 05 (Annexure P-1) , held the terminati o n of the petitioner to be illegal and directed her reinstate m ent on the post of Beldar wi t h continuity of service and 50% bac k wages from the date of deman d notice, i.e. 21.10.1999. It is pleaded that the respondents implemented the said Award by reinstatin g the petitioner with continuit y of service and payment of back wa g es. According to the petition e r, the respondents did not challeng e the said Award and, therefor e , the same attained finality. Learned c ounsel for the petitioner furth e r submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “ Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others” , decided on 10.04.2006 , directed the State Govern m ents to consider regularization of eligible employees who had rendered long years of continuou s service against sanctioned vacant p o sts. It is the case of the petitio n er that having been working continuo u sly since October, 1988, she fulfilled the conditions laid down in t he said judgment and became e ntitled to regularization. The

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) 3

petitione r , thereafter, filed CWP N o .20009 of 2013 seeking regulariz a tion of her services. Howe v er, in view of subsequent develop m ents, the said writ petition wa s permitted to be withdrawn with lib e rty to file a fresh petition v i de order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexu r e P-2) passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court . During the pend e ncy of the aforesaid writ pe t ition, the State of Haryana issued t h e Regularization Policy date d 18.06.2014, subsequently amended on 14.08.2014 (Annexure P-3 collectively), providing for regulariz a tion of eligible Group 'C' and G roup 'D' employees. In terms of the said policy, the petitioner's services were regularized on the post of Beldar vide order dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-4). Pursuant thereto, t he petitioner submitted her j o ining report on 05.08.2014 (Annexu r e P-5) and also furnished t h e requisite medical fitness certificat e . Thereafter, the State G o vernment issued another notificati o n dated 20.08.2014 (Ann e xure P-6) amending the Regulari z ation Policy dated 18.06.2014. Consequent upon the said amendm e nt, respondent No.3 passed a n order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexu r e P-7) withdrawing/de-regulari z ing the petitioner's services. Accordin g to the petitioner, the said order was passed without affording her any opportunity of heari n g. Learned counsel further submitte d that one Sh. Khazan Singh, w h o was appointed as T-Mate in Febru a ry, 1990 and is stated to be j unior to the petitioner, was regulariz e d vide order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) with effect from 01. 0 2.1996. According to the petiti o ner, despite being senior and similarly situated, her claim for regulariz a tion was not granted.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) 4

Aggrieved by the order dat e d 25.08.2014, the petitioner filed CWP No.22754 of 2014 , which w a s disposed of by this Court vide com m on judgment dated 29.11.201 4 (Annexure P-9) rendered in CWP N o .19224 of 2014, Vikas v. St a te of Haryana and others, directing the respondents to reconsider t he matter after affording an opportun i ty of hearing to the petitioner a nd by passing a fresh order. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, th e petitioner was granted an opportun i ty of personal hearing. There a fter, the respondents passed the impu g ned order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the petitione r 's claim for regularization, pri m arily on the ground that she did not p o ssess the prescribed education a l qualification for the post of Beldar.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approach e d this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the impugned order is arbitrary, ill e gal and contrary to the law laid dow n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . It is further pleaded that the petitione r had already been regularized v ide order dated 01.08.2014, had joined pursuant thereto, and acquire d a vested right which could not have b een taken away by the subsequent amendment to the policy. It is also the petitioner's case that, in a ny event, she is entitled to regulariz a tion from the date on which h e r junior, namely Sh. Khazan Singh, w a s regularized, along with all c o nsequential service benefits including continuity of service, seniority a nd other attendant benefits.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) 5

Vide last order dated 05.2.2 0 20 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, the present writ peti t ion was adjourned sine die to await t h e decision of SLP(C) No.3326 5 of 2018. 6. It is pointed out that the m atter had gone before the Hon'ble S upreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan S ingh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.20 2 6; whereby the aforesaid Polic y dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld; a nd the permissible course of a c tion available for the State to regul a rize services of the employ e es has been elaborately specified . It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the responde n ts to consider the claim of th e petitioner individually for regulariz a tion in light of the policy d ecision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexu r e P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. 7. Learned State counsel poi n ts out that the said issue came for consideration before the Divis i on Bench of this Court in LPA-1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was dispo s ed of vide judgment dated 23.04.20 2 6, relevant paras of which, read as under: -

“5. Today, when the m a tter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble S upreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in M adan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil A p peal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. 6. The judgment of th e Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Hary a na and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the pe r missible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elabora t ely specified.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

6

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M)

7. Learned Advocate G e neral, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court t h at if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the ind i vidual claim of each of the employee (either appellant s or respondents herein), then separate orders woul d be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supr e me Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra).

8. Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the r e spondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement mad e by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accor d ed fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of t he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh ( supra). 9. In that view of the m atter, all the appeals are disposed of with a dire c tion upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corpor a tion/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim o f employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a s peaking order in respect of their claim for regularizat i on within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands mod i fied in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh ( s upra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim o f each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists t oday would be maintained. It goes without saying that t he claim of regularization based on policy of 201 1 will also be accorded consideration keeping in vi e w the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme C o urt in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the ord e r impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petiti o ns would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization.

10. In order to facilitat e a fresh consideration of claim of the individual e mployee, we direct each employee to submit a comp r ehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from th e date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. All pending misc. a p plication(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

It is prayed that the pre s ent writ petition be also

disposed of in the above terms.

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) 7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has

‘no objec t ion’ to the same. 10. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition st a nds disposed of in terms of the abo v e order dated 23.04.2026 p assed in case of Aas Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/ c oncerned Department to accor d fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for regularization; a nd pass a speaking order thereupo n within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment dated 16.04.20 2 6 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra). 11. Pending application(s) if an y also stand(s) disposed of.

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document