1yudhvir Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:29.05.2026 Yudhvir Singh and others .....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on their respective posts in view of their long, continuous, and uninterrupted service of more than 25 years against sanctioned and available posts, along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom. The petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to consider and decide their claim for regularization by passing a reasoned and speaking order

within a time-bound period and to decide the legal notice dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure P-10). Further prayer has been made for grant of all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, and arrears along with interest, as well as for extending the same benefit of regularization as granted to the similarly situated employee, Ravinder Kumar, vide order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-9). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were initially engaged by respondent No.4 during the period from 1988 to 2000 on the posts of Clerk and Watchman through a recognized mode of engagement. The service particulars of the petitioners have been placed on record as Annexure P-1, whereas the payment records have been annexed as Annexures P-2 to P-5. It is submitted that petitioner No.4, namely Surender Singh, joined service as Watchman on 08.11.1988; petitioner No.3, namely Ashok Kumar, joined on 06.11.1993; petitioner No.1, namely Yudhvir Singh, joined as Clerk on 18.12.1998; and petitioner No.2, namely Surender Kumar, joined as Watchman on 28.11.2000. 2.2.

It is further contended that all the petitioners had completed the requisite period of service by 30.09.2003 in terms of the Haryana Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 and have been continuing in service uninterruptedly since their initial engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4, vide letter dated 06.01.2026

(Annexure P-6), forwarded the names of certain petitioners for regularization. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued administrative directions dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) and 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-8), directing compliance of the judgments passed by the competent Courts and regularization of eligible employees.

2.3.

He further submits that a similarly situated employee, namely Ravinder Kumar, has already been regularized vide order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) issued by respondent No.4, but the case of the petitioners has not been considered despite their being similarly placed. It is contended that the petitioners served a legal notice dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure P-10) upon the respondents; however, no action has been taken thereon till date. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On asking of Court, Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana put in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 6.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by

respondent(s)/competent authority.

7.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondent No.4/competent authority is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order after affording them 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 petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents. 8.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No