Jaibir Singh v. State Of Hry. & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 16.07.2025
   

   

  Jaibir .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents    

   
   Ram Rattan .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents     !"#$%&'"% ""! ($) '"*#$%&'" Present :

Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate with Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate, for both the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

**** % ""! ($) '"*#$%&'" + Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue involved herein is no more res-integra in view of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2158 of 2020 (Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others) dated 13.03.2024 duly upheld by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.11.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2683 of 2024 (State of Haryana and others vs. Ashish Sharma and others). RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.07.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 



   

[2] 2.

The dispute herein is for quashment of notice for termination dated 02.09.2005 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that under the regularization policy dated 01.10.2003, the petitioners were not eligible since they had been appointed on 08.07.1997 and 10.06.1996 respectively, which was after the cut of date provided by the policy as 31.01.1996 and yet they were wrongly regularized vide order dated 31.12.2004.

3.

Thereafter during the pendency of these petitions, the respondents de-regularized vide office order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure R-3) filed with the written statement of the respondent-State of Haryana. 4.

Learned counsel for the State of Haryana is ready and willing to consider the case of the petitioners in view of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2158 of 2020 dated 13.03.2024 duly upheld by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.11.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2683 of 2024.

5.

In view of the above, both the petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on the anvil of the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2158 of 2020 duly upheld by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.11.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2683 of 2024 and pass a speaking order within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of this order. In case the petitioners are aggrieved, they can revisit the Court. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE 16.07.2025 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.07.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document