Vinay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Present writ petition unde r Articles 226/227 of the Constituti o n of India has been filed by th e petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashi n g the order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent N o . 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioners ; AND/OR to further direction to the respondents to finalize the seniori t y of the petitioners by countin g their past service and grant them all t h e consequential benefits includ i ng promotion, ACP, notional pay fixatio n etc. 2. It is , inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 19.03.20 0 8 (Annexure P-1) petitioners have bee n appointed as Assistant Info r mation and Public Relation Officers ( A IPRO) against regular sanction e d posts in the Department of Informatio n , Public Relations and Langu a ges on contractual basis. On completio n of 02 months training given b y the Department concerned, the petitio n ers are posted against regula r sanctioned posts vide order

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.10 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CWP-2791-2020 -2-

¶16

dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) create d by Haryana Government by taking co n currence of Finance Departme n t in this regard. Thereafter, vide order / letter dated 11.09.2014 (Annex u re P-3), the appointments of the petitio n ers on the post of AIPRO has been regularized. Since then the petitio n ers are continuously working o n the said post from date of their joini n g till regularization. It is furthe r submitted that the petitioners have mo v ed representations dated 3 0.11.2016 and 10.10.2019 (Annexure s P-5 and P-6, respectively) qu a fixing their intra and inter-se seniority i n the Department and prepare t h e seniority list and give them the benef i t of their past service. The r eafter, the petitioners have approache d this Court by way of CWP-31876-2019 and the same was disposed v ide order dated 04.11.2019 (A n nexure P-9) and respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the aforesaid representations moved by the petitioners . Pursuant thereto, impugn e d order dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-12) has been passed by th e respondent No. 2. Relevant extract of t h e impugned order, reads as fol l ows:-

¶17

“xxx xxx xxx

¶18

The para No. 3 of the regularization policy dated 18.06.2014 and 20.06.2014 provides for the criteria of fixing seniority of such o ff icials whose services were regularized under the policy and the same is re-produced as under:-

¶19

“The seniority of the employees so regularized shall be fixed from the date of their regularization and they shall be placed below in the seniority to the employees last appointed on the regular basis before the date of regularization of these employees. However, the inter-se-seniority of such employees shall be determined in accordance with the date of their joining the post on contract basis. If the date of joining the post on contract basis of such employees is the same, then the older employee shall rank senior to the employee younger in age.”

¶20

RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.10 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶21

CWP-2791-2020 -3-

¶22

Further, it is also rele v ant to mention here that the regularization policies of t he year 2014 of Haryana Government have been quashed vide judgment/order dated 31.05.2018 by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.17206 of 2 0 14 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs State of Haryan a and Others. The Haryana Government filed Special Le a ve Petition (Civil) No. 31566 of 2018 in the Hon'ble Supre m e Court of India against the said decision of Hon'ble Pun j ab and Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.11.2018 directed to maintain status qu o in the matter.

¶23

Keeping in view the a f oresaid position, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for seniority and other consequential benefits including promotion, ACP, notional pay fixation etc. b y counting their past service rendered on contractual bas i s w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and they will be given seniority and ot h er benefits etc, w.e.f. the date of regularization i e. 28. 05. 2 014 and that also subject to final outcome of SLP No. 3 1 566 of 2018 pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court or as the Court directs further. I order accordingly.”

¶24

Consequently, vide last ord e r dated 03.02.2020, present writ petiti o n was adjourned sine die to a w ait the decision of SLP filed against C W P-17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others.

¶25

It is pointed out that subse q uently, in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; the policies date d 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 have been upheld. It is accordingly pra y ed that the impugned order dated 18.1 2 .2019 (Annexure P-12) be set aside and direction be issued to the res p ondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of aforesaid p olicies upheld by the Hon’bl e Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), and petitioners b e granted all consequential benefits.

¶26

Learned State counsel submit s that she has ‘no objection’ to the same.

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.10 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CWP-2791-2020 -4-

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

The present writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 18.12.201 9 (Annexure P-12) is set asi d e; with a direction to the responden t -State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh considerat i on to the claim of petitioners; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of six months f rom today, while keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Hon’b l e Supreme Court in Madan

¶31

Singh’s (supra).

¶32

Pending application(s) if any a lso stand(s) disposed of.

¶33

09.07.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶35

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶36

RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.10 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Vinay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Avinash @Kaley and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Attar Singh Dahiya Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Neha Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.