280-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22592-2015 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.01.2026 MUNISH GUPTA AND OTHERS ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR *****

Present: Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.S. Chaddha, Advocate Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for respondents No.5, 7, 8 and 9.

*****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are nine in number who have been regularly appointed in the services of different Government-run Polytechnics in the State of Haryana. They are aggrieved by a decision taken by the State in its policy dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P-32), under which the regularization policy dated07.03.1996 that stood shelved on08.12.1997, has been revived and consequential orders have been passed on 29.08.2014 (Annexure P- 33), whereby private respondents No.5 to 9 have been regularized w.e.f. 31.01.1996, on completion of 02 years of service. The petitioners contend that they have been substantively appointed in the service between 1997 to 2004, and stand much higher in seniority over private respondents, but on account of the impugned policy decision of the State, the private respondents who have been substantively appointed much later, would steal a march over them and would be placed higher in seniority by treating their appointment w.e.f. 31.01.1996.

2. Before we delve into the respective contentions urged in the matter, it would be appropriate to notice essential facts of the case itself. Private respondents No.5, 6 and 7 were appointed on adhoc basis as System Analyst/programmer on 17.10.1993. They continued to work as such. Pursuant to regular vacancies advertised, these persons then applied for regular appointment against substantive vacancies. Respondents No.5 and 6 were substantively appointed on 26.02.2007 and 06.03.2007, respectively. These respondents i.e respondents No. 5 and 6 accepted the substantive appointment from the date of such order and not only joined but also continuously worked thereafter. So far as respondent No.7 is concerned, he was not able to secure fresh substantive appointment in the subsequent recruitment exercise and in terms of the policy of the State for regularization, his services came to be regularized on 06.03.2012. Similarly, respondent No.8, though appointed earlier on 19.08.1992 came to be regularized on 06.03.2012. Respondent No.9 was also appointed on adhoc basis in 1993, and he too was appointed on regular basis on 31.12.2003 in an open selection. He has also been promoted on 18.10.2007 to the post of Senior Lecturer. None of the private respondents have either challenged their regular recruitment or their regularization in terms of the policy from the specified dates. However, on account of the impugned action, all the private respondents are now granted entry into service consequent upon their regularization w.e.f. 31.01.1996. The facts, noticed above, have been reproduced in a chart contained in para 10 of the writ petition, which is extracted hereunder:-

3. We may note that the facts stated in the aforesaid chart remains undisputed.

4. It transpires that the State of Haryana came up with the policy of regularization in the year 1996 (Annexure P-28), on 07.03.1996, in respect of Class-II employees who were appointed on adhoc basis. This policy is reproduced as under:-

“I am directed to invite your attention on the subject noted above and to say that the matter regarding regularizations of adhoc class II employees has been engaging the attention of Government, for some time past and it has now been decided to regularize the services of adhoc class II employees