Sushil Kumar And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS




    
 

 

  

 

 !

 """""     State Of Haryana And Ors

""#$   

   

 



 

 

% "

&  

"



'

 ('

% "

) 

'

 ( 

%"

  

'

 (



 $ "

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Haryana-State.

Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.2, 4 and 5.

**** 


 

  ! "#$% 1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adopt the petitioners on

the Municipal Corporation Roll (Palika Roll) in terms of Instructions/Letter No. 17/76/2020-4C dated 23.04.2020 (Annexure P-1) and Letter No. 3096/CSI dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). Further, a direction is sought restraining the respondents from replacing the petitioners with another set of contractual employees of the same category on their respective posts in future.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners have been continuously working as Sweepers/Supervisors with the respondent-Department for the last seven years through outsourcing agencies. The respondents initiated a process for absorption/adoption on the Corporation Roll (Palika Roll) for contractual employees who had worked during the period from 24.05.2018 to 06.09.2019, in terms of policy instructions dated 23.04.2020 (Annexure P-1) and 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). The petitioners, being fully eligible under the said policy, submitted all the requisite documents, including bank statements and provident fund records for the relevant period from January 2018 to December 2019. The petitioners later came to know that their names had not been included on the Corporation Roll despite their eligibility. The petitioners made repeated representations to the respondents, the last of which was submitted on 02.03.2026, but the same have remained unheeded.

*

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the representation dated 02.03.2026, Annexure P-4, of the petitioners is decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Haryana-State waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State and Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate appeared on advanced notice on behalf of respondents No.2, 4 and 5. He submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondents for timebound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

6.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representation, Annexure P-4, of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording them an opportunity to be heard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.

Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to them forthwith by respondents/competent authority.



8.

Disposed of, accordingly.

!


  %    
 



$)+,  "

 -,& 

#$ ."



-,&