Suresh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.05.2026 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Nischal Manchanda, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana. Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in view of the judgments (Annexures P-3 & P-4) and further to regularize the services in view of the policies of the year 2011 issued by the respondentDepartment and also grant the arrears of the salary after regularizing the services of the petitioner since 2008 and 2011 when the policy was in force to regularize the services of the part time workers who have completed 10 years of their services along with interest. Further, to regularize the services of the petitioner in view of the policies floated by the Government from time to time. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in the respondent-

-2Nigam on 21.10.2008 and the petitioner has rendered more than 18 years of continuous service. The petitioner further performs full time duty from 05:00 P.M. to 08:30 A.M. but his services have been designated as part time by the respondents. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the policy dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) and the juniors who were appointed later than the petitioner have already been regularized.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No.10071 of 2022 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others and connected matters decided on 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), CWP No.31304 of 2025 titled as Joginder Vs. State of Haryana and others and connected matters decided on 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) and CWP No.25042 of 2025 titled as Hari Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) and submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments and at this stage, he would be satisfied in case the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided in light of the policy (Annexure P-2) and judgments rendered by this Court (Annexures P3 to P-5) in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana and Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Parmar, Advocate put in appearance and accept notice on behalf of the respondent-State and respondents No.2 to 5, respectively and submit that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present

-3writ petition would be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent No.3.

6.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and respondent No.3 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the policy (Annexure P-2) and judgments rendered by this Court (Annexures P-3 to P-5) and pass a speaking order after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.3.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.05.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No