IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

1. CWP-31401-2025

PHOOLWATI

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

2. CWP-19304-2025

SUNEHARI DEVI

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

3. CWP-28604-2024

NANKI DEVI

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

4. CWP-7794-2021

SHISHPAL AND OTHERS

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

5. CWP-8001-2025 MOHINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

6. CWP-27470-2025 HISAM SINGH @ ISHAM SINGH .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

7. CWP-27974-2024 LAL CHAND .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

8. CWP-31303-2018 SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

9. CWP-25136-2019 SURESH KUMAR AND ANR.

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

11. CWP-26130-2019 ROSHAN LAL AND ORS.

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

12. CWP-6020-2016 (O&M)

DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

13. CWP-12289-2019 (O&M)

MAHINDER KUMAR .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

14. CWP-13525-2024 (O&M)

KANHIYA LAL .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

15. CWP-13634-2010 (O&M)

BAJRANG .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

16. CWP-1670-2003 (O&M)

BIHARI .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

17. CWP-18127-2001 (O&M)

RAJINDER KUMAR .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

18. CWP-3171-2022 (O&M)

MUNSI @MUNSI RAM .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate and Ms. Swati Tiwana, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Tiwana, Advocate Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate and Mr. Dharampal Saini, Advocate, Mr. Karan Bhadwaj, Mr. Surender Kumar Daaria, Advocates and Mr. Parveen Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Harmanjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sirat Sapra, Advocate Mr. L.R.Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate Mr. Stephan Masih, Advocate Mr. S.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Raman B.Garg, Advocate Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana with Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana and Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal, DAG, Haryana.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Vide this common order, this Court intends to dispose off all the above-said petitions together as common question of law is involved therein. Just to avoid repetition, the facts are being taken from CWP-31401-2025 titled as “Phoolwati vs. State of Haryana and others”

Prayer

1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/ setting aside of the impugned Speaking Order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services w.e.f. 01.02.1996 in view of the Instruction/regularization policy dated 07.03.1996/ 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-1), has been rejected in an illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory manner, as the petitioner has worked continuously since more than 31 years on daily wages basis with the respondents Department. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Mali/Labourer (Group-D posts) w.e.f. 01.02.1996, along with arrears and all consequential benefits, in view of the regularization policy dated

07.03.1996/18.03.1996 (Annexure P/1).

Brief facts of the case:-

2. The petitioner, was engaged as a Mali/La