Disposed

State of Haryana and Others v. Surender Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2026LPA/1505/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against a Single Judge's regularization order. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal directing the State to examine the respondent's case for regularization under policy in light of Madan Singh and its own earlier ruling, modifying the impugned direction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed; Single Judge's regularization direction modified; State directed to examine respondent's case under policy per Madan Singh; status quo on working maintained till orders passed.

State of Haryana and Others Vs Surender Kumar — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

113

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA-1505-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.05.2026

¶4

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …..APPELLANT(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

SURENDER KUMAR ….RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶8

Present: Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl., AG, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the applicants-appellants.

¶9

¶10

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

¶11

CM-3688-LPA-2026 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

CM-3689-LPA-2026 (delay)

¶14

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the applicants-appellants seeking condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 103 days in filing the accompanying appeal stands condoned.

¶16

Main Case (O&M)

¶17

This appeal is by the State of Haryana assailing the order

¶18

passed by the learned Single Judge directing regularization of the respondent(s)/writ petitioner(s).

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the consideration of facts of each case are lacking, and it is also not clear as

¶20

SURESH KUMAR 2026.05.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

LPA-1505-2026 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

to under which policy the relief of regularization was being claimed. It is further submitted that merely because ten years have been completed, would not give right to the employees for regularization unless the same is, otherwise covered by the policy framed for regularization.

¶24

Despite advance notice having been served by the learned State counsel, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent(s).

¶25

The legality of these schemes had fallen for consideration

¶26

before the Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.17206 of 2014 . The judgment of the Division Bench in Yogesh Tyagi (supra) has been interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh and others vs.

¶27

State of Haryana , Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. More so, similar matters have been disposed of by us on 23.04.2026, with leading case being LPA-1810-2025, titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others .

¶28

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal with a direction upon the State to examine individual cases of the respondent(s)writ petitioner(s) for regularization, keeping in view the policy in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (Supra), as also the judgment of this Court in LPA-1810-2025 (supra).

¶29