JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to to regularize the services of the petitioners on the posts of Accounts Clerks in the light of the Policy dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) and Notification dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-6) without insisting on the condition of continuous/continued service of 10 years as on 10.04.2006 and in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and others vs Union of India and others and Shripal and others vs Nagar Nigam Gaziabad and others, as well as the judgment passed in Jaggo vs Union of India and others, 2024 SCC (Online) SC 3826 and in the light of the judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed in CWP-2158-2020, titled as Ashish Sharma and others vs State of Haryana and others and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CWP-31304-2025, titled as Joginder vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 31.12.2025, along with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis as Accounts Clerks in the Haryana Women Development Corporation in the year 2014. The State of Haryana has issued a regularization policy on 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) for Group-C and Group-D employees, who have complted 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. The policy was amended from time to time to condone breaks in service upto 90 days in a year if not attributable to the employee. The Government of Haryana has issued another policy on 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-7) stating contractual employees with 03 years of service were entitled to regularization, however, the said policy was set-aside by this Court in CWP-17206- 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have rendered satisfactory and unblemished service while discharging their duties. He further contends that the perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The petitioners are neither engaged as a part-time workers nor as a casual labourers and there has been no complaint or adverse remarks against the petitioners. The petitioners’ continuous engagement on contract basis is violative of the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, as well as the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-35744-2025 titled as Anoop Singh vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.12.2025 which recognizes the right of long-serving contractual employees to be considered for regularization, however, the respondents have failed to take any decision in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) seeking regularization of their services, which is still pending consideration and has not been decided by the respondents.

3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, could not controvert the factual position that the petitioners have rendered more than 11 years of continuous service with the respondent/Corporation and no adverse remarks or disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. It has also not been disputed that the petitioners are discharging duties of a perennial and regular nature, which are otherwise being performed by regularly appointed Account Clerks.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a co