JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. 

1. By way of the writ petition bearing CWP No.10759-2025 petitioners are seeking quashing of impugned order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent no. 4 vide which the claim of the petitioner for antedated regularization on the basis of Haryana Government Policy decision of 1979, dated 19.02.1979 (Annexure P-6) has been rejected whereas similarly placed employees have been granted antedated regularization by the respondent as per orders dated 17.02.1986 (Annexure P-7) and 19.12.2011 (Annexure P-8). Further a prayer for directing the respondents to grant the petitioner antedated regularisation along with consequential benefits on the basis of 1979 Policy.

The conspectus of Facts:

2. The petitioners are employees of the respondent Department, working as mechanics, tyre men, radiator repairers, blacksmiths and other workshop staff. They were initially appointed as Helpers on daily wage basis between September 1994 and December 1995 after due process of law and were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services were not regularized from the date of completion of 240 days of continuous service as mandated under the Transport Department policy dated 19.02.1979, which provides for regularization of such categories of employees upon completion of 240 days.

3. Earlier, similarly situated employees approached this court in CWP No. 6315 of 1998 titled as “Jaimal Singh and others vs State of Haryana” this Court vide order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) directed preponement of regularization in terms of the 1979 policy, which orders were upheld after dismissal of LPAs filed by the State, and duly implemented by the Department on 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-9).

4. The petitioners submitted representations dated 08.05.2024 and 15.09.2024 (Annexure P-15) seeking similar relief. Upon inaction, they approached this Court by way of CWP No. 25932 of 2024, which was disposed of on 14.10.2024 with a direction to decide the representations. In purported compliance thereof, the representations of some petitioners were rejected, while no decision was taken in respect of others vide order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-16).

6. A similar relief was sought by filing CWP-21768-2013 which was allowed by way of order dated 18.05.2016 and the same has been assailed in the in LPA-2381-2016 which was pending.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

6. Heard counsel for both parties.

Backdrop of Proceedings

7. The present petition was admitted on 21.04.2025 and was to be listed after the final adjudication of LPA-2381-2016. On 04.11.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for disposing of the petition in terms of order dated 25.04.2025 passed in LPA-713-2019 and order dated 01.05.2025 passed in LPA-2381-2016. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana was not in averse to the submisssion made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the same, the present writ petition was listed for hearing.

Contentions On behalf of petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-16) is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as it rejects the claim of the petitioners for antedated regularization despite the existence of a binding Government policy dated 19.02.1979, which mandates regularization of workshop staff upon completion of 240 days of continuous service.

9. It is argued that the petitioners are identically situated to employees who were granted such benefit pursuant to judicial pronouncements and denial of similar relief to the petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination. The respondents have failed to assign any cogent or distinguishable reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioners while extending identical benefits to similarly placed employees, including pursuant to judgments in CWP-21768-2013 and connected LPAs decided on 25.04.2025 and 01.05.2025.

10. Learned