IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5994-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Babita ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Ayushka Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

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 regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of her long service of more than 10 years on the post of Data Entry Operator (nomenclature changed as Clerk) and further to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner for regularization of her services in view of longevity and existing demand and continuous work and further to direct the respondents to grant equal pay scales to the petitioner as per the regular pay scale from the date of her entitlement with all consequential benefits i.e. dearness allowance, increments, notional seniority etc.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was duly selected by HARTRON through an Online Computer Test and Type Test and was appointed as a Data Entry Operator/Computer Professional on contractual basis in terms of the Haryana Government policy dated 06/08.11.2001. He further submits that the petitioner’s contract is being extended from time to time without any break and she has rendered continuous and unblemished service of more than 12 years with Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications at par with those prescribed for a regular Clerk and she is discharging identical duties against sanctioned posts and her work and conduct remained consistently satisfactory.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the employees who have rendered more than 10 years of continuous service without intervention of Courts are entitled to consideration for regularization as a one-time measure. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-31304-2025, titled as Joginder vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.12.2025, along with other connected cases, whereby it has been categorically held that the employees who have rendered more than 10 years of service as on 31.12.2025 are entitled to the benefit of regularization with all consequential benefits. Further reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230, Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 20.03.2025 seeking regularization on the basis of her long and continuous service, due selection process and availability of sanctioned posts, but no action has been taken so far.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not impleaded Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited in the present petition. Since the petitioner has rendered continuous service in the said Bank, therefore, any representation submitted by her is required to be addressed and considered by the Managing Director of the Bank.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner would file a comprehensive representation before the Managing Director, Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Chandigarh withi