Haryana State Council For Child Welfare And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Another
(2 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
AT CHA F PUNJAB AND HARYANA ANDIGARH Date of D Decision : 01.07.2026
1. CM-3 LPA-162 977-LPA-2026 in/and HARYAN STATE O 9-2026 (O&M) NA STATE COUNCIL FOR C CHILD WELFARE AND ORS .
s
VERSUS
OF HARYANA AND ANOTHE ........Appellants S ER ........Responden nts
2. CM-3 LPA-163 978-LPA-2026 in/and HARYA 0-2026 (O&M) ANA STATE COUNCIL FOR C CHILD WELFARE AND ORS S ........Appellants ERSUS s VE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHE STATE O
CORAM:
Present:
HARSIM CM-3977 CM-3978 ER ........Responden nts HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AM ARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Addl. A.G e for the appellant(s).
G., Haryana.
MRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral l) 7-LPA-2026 in LPA-1629-2026 8-LPA-2026 in LPA-1630-2026 (O&M) and (O&M) Present applications have be en filed for condoning the delay y of 39 days in n filing the appeal.
Keeping in view the contents s mentioned in the applications, the same are a allowed.
Delay of 39 days in filing the e appeals, is condoned.
LPA-162 1.
9-2026 (O&M) and LPA-1630- -2026 (O&M) Present are the set of two appeals, the details of which are mentioned d in the heading, involve commo on question of law in the context t of common s set of facts and thus they are bein ng decided by a common order.
LPA-1629-2026 (O&M) and LPA-1630-2026 (O&M) -22.
In the present set of appeals, challenge is to the impugned orders dated 23.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.5150 of 2020 titled "Nem Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others" in LPA No.1629 of 2026 and the order passed in CWP No.18727 of 2021 titled "Baljraj Singh vs. State of Haryana and others" in LPA No.1630 of 2026. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that once the orders of termination were set aside on technical grounds, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted liberty to the appellant(s) to proceed afresh against the respondents in accordance with law. 4.
Notice of motion.
5.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State in both the appeals and Mr. Saurabh Bhoria, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
6.
Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that though, in the cases of similarly situated employees, namely, Kamlesh Shastri and Chander Mohan Bhatnagar, such liberty was granted but no proceedings have been initiated against them. Therefore, initiation of inquiry proceedings against the present private respondent by adopting a pick-andchoose method cannot be sustained. 7.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance. 8.
It is noticed that since the orders of termination dated 23.03.2026 were set aside on the ground that the inquiry proceedings, which culminated in the termination orders, were not conducted in accordance with law, the learned Single Judge was required to grant liberty to the appellant(s)
LPA-1629-2026 (O&M) and LPA-1630-2026 (O&M) -3to proceed afresh against the respondents in accordance with law. 9.
It may be further noticed that in the cases of Kamlesh Shastri and Chander Mohan Bhatnagar, while passing similar orders, the learned Single Judge granted such liberty. Accordingly, the appellant(s) shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondents in accordance with law. 10.
However, the respondents herein shall be at liberty to raise the objection that despite the grant of similar liberty in the cases of Kamlesh Shastri and Chander Mohan Bhatnagar, no fresh proceedings were initiated against them and, therefore, initiation of proceedings only against the present respondents would amount to discrimination. Such objection, if raised, shall be considered by the appellant(s) in accordance with law before initiating the present proceedings.
11.
No further argument has been raised.
12.
Keeping in view the above, the present set of appeals is disposed of with the observation that the appellant(s) shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondents in accordance with law after complying with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as noticed hereinabove, subject to the liberty granted to the respondents to raise such objections as mentioned above.
13.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 14.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 01-07-2026 Sapna Goyal (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE NOTE:
Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO