JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Present judgment shall dispose of 30 cases i.e. LPA Nos.688, 540 & 573 of 2021, LPA Nos.740, 739, 751, 802, 479, 918, 916, 818, 302, 541, 532 & 585 of 2020, LPA Nos.8, 9, 18, 45, 55, 152, 818, 560, 567 and 106 of 2021, LPA Nos.171 & 148 of 2022 and LPA No.536 of 2016 and LPA Nos.444 & 508 of 2020.

2. The State's endeavour to deny regularization to Class-IV employees of Category-D, who have served them for almost 4 decades and still continue to serve them, befuddle them thus burdening this Court with repeated rounds of litigation.

3. Firstly, policies of regularization framed by the State itself, on which action is taken selectively leading to a clamour for equality on account of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has led to the present round of litigation, wherein various Single Bench Judges of this Court while noticing the dereliction of the duties at the level of State had directed regularization. The State continues to deny to these lowly placed employees their place of equality with regard to the benefit of regularization and service benefits.

4. The factual matrix in sum and substance would necessarily have to be noticed, accordingly, regarding the various policies the State has issued and repeatedly gone back and introduced them at its own convenience and then raised arguments that when the case for consideration was put up the said policies were not in force and therefore, put the employees/writ petitioners at a disadvantage while granting the benefit of regularization to a certain set of persons who would be juniors. It is in this matrix the background of the litigation in question has arisen, which primarily in the present case pertains to an innocuous order of directions for considering the case of regularization as per policies dated 18.03.1996 and 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-12) on the strength of the fact that the juniors of the writ petitioners had been regularized vide Annexures P-3 to P-9 on 16.10.2006, 09.01.2007 and 19.02.2007. Another reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that in view of the directions issued in CWP No.17150 of 2015 titled as Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' the Kaithal Forest Division had regularized the services of the petitioners therein vide order dated 06.07.2018 and was in the process of regularization of other employees.

5. It is pertinent to notice that the writ petitioners in LPA-688-2021 herein were appointed between the year 1982 to 1986 and had at one point of time been retrenched, which they had successfully challenged before the Labour Court and they had been ordered to be reinstated vide Award dated 27.03.2006. The writ petitions filed by the State had been disposed off, keeping in view the fact that the workmen had been taken back in service and on a consent to the extent that they are entitled only to the 25% of the back-wages, which would be clear from the order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P-1). The factum of date of joining and the number of years of service would be clear from the table reproduced in the writ petition itself, which reads as under:-

6. It is not disputed that on the issue of equality as such which the State cannot deny, as in Pawan Kumar's case (supra) it had chosen to implement the order o