Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prayer in the present Civil W rit Petition is for issuance of an appr o priate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the responde n ts to regularize the services o f the petitioners as per the policy i n structions dated 18.6.2014 ( A nnexure P-1) as they are eligible t o be considered for regulari z ation of their services on completi o n of three years and also gra n ting them all consequential benefits i.e. seniority, pay fixation a n d arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.5.201 4 alongwith interest @18% per a nnum.

¶15

It is inter alia submitted b y learned counsel for the petitione r s that the petitioners were initi a lly engaged on daily wages in the ye a rs 2006 and 2010 and have bee n continuously working with the respo n dent-Department since then. I t is their case that they have

¶16

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2

¶18

CWP-5419-2022 (O & M)

¶19

complete d more than 240 days of servic e in each calendar year, their work and conduct have remained satisfac t ory, and no adverse material has ever been recorded against the m . Learned counsel for the petitione r s contend that the State Government framed the Regulari z ation Policy dated 18.06.2014 providing for regularization of eligibl e Group 'C' and Group 'D' emp l oyees, and pursuant thereto, the depar t ment sought particulars of elig i ble employees. Their names were included in the list of employees fulfilling the prescribed conditio n s, and the Executive Engineer also recommended their cases for regu l arization by forwarding the requisite proposals to the compete n t authority. However, despite such recommendations, no final dec i sion was taken and the service s of the petitioners were not regulariz e d. Aggrieved thereby, t h e petitioners submitted represent a tions and also served a legal n o tice dated 26.05.2016, but to no avail. Earlier, the petitioners had ap p roached this Court by filing CWP No. 24077 of 2016, which was or d ered to be heard along with CWP No . 17206 of 2014 involving the s a me issue. Subsequently, the bunch of petitions including CWP No. 17206 of 2014 was dismissed on 31.05 . 2018, whereby the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 was set a s ide. However, the operation of t he said judgment was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.1 1 .2018 in the Special Leave Petition p referred by the State. Learne d counsel for the petitioners, therefore , contend that the petitioners satisfy all the conditions prescribe d under the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 and are entitled t o regularization of their services with effect from 28.05.2014,

¶20

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

3

¶22

CWP-5419-2022 (O & M)

¶23

along wit h consequential benefits includi n g seniority, pay fixation and arrears. A lleging that the inaction of t he respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 1 4 and 16 of the Constitution of India, t herefore, the petitioners have a p proached this Court seeking appropri a te directions for regularization o f their services and grant of all conse q uential benefits.

¶24

Vide last order dated 17.3.2022 passed by a predecessor Bench o f this Court, the writ petition wa s adjourned sine die to await the outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 filed against CWP-172062014 titl e d as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others.

¶25

4. It is pointed out that subseq u ently, in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; the policies dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1 herein ) have been upheld. It is accordin g ly prayed that direction be is s ued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of aforesaid policies upheld b y the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Madan Singh’s case (supra), a nd petitioners be granted all co n sequential benefits. 5. 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-1810-2025titled 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: -

¶26

“5. Today, when the m a tter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble S upreme Court has finally

¶27

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

4

¶29

CWP-5419-2022 (O & M)

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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).

¶33

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).

¶34

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.

¶35

10. In order to facilitat e a fresh consideration of claim of the individual e mployee, we direct each

¶36

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

5

¶38

CWP-5419-2022 (O & M)

¶39

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.”

¶40

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

¶41

disposed of in the above terms.

¶42

Learned counsel for the peti t ioners submits that she has

¶43

‘no objec t ion’ to the same.

¶44

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).

¶45

Pending application(s) if an y also stand(s) disposed of.

¶46

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

¶47

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Ors. 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

Sahil Vs State of Haryana

Isham Singh Vs Hy State

Rajinder Parsad Vs State of Haryana and Others

Renu Saini and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunehri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Monika Dhankhar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.