IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5992-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Ravi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 (P-15) whereby the respondent No.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointing him on Group-C post in lieu of his land acquired by the respondents for the construction of Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant, in violation of the government policy/Decision dated 14.02.2012/05.07.2007 (Annexure P-6) and in complete violation of judgment dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P-13) and judgment dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P-12). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on Group-C post on the basis of his qualifications as per policy dated 14.02.2012/05.07.2007 (Annexure P-6) from the date when other similarly situated persons were appointed, alongwith all consequential benefits and further directions to pay the arrears of salary along with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in the year 1998, the respondents acquired land in village Khedar, District Hisar, for setting up the Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant. The petitioner’s father had separated from his joint family in the year 1993 (pre-acquisition) and formed an independent unit with a separate residence, kitchen and utilities as discernible from Annexures P-16, P-17 and P-18, respectively. The policy provides that the family unit is to be considered as it existed in the year 1998. Despite this, no appointment was ever granted to Mahender Singh’s independent family unit, even though the petitioner’s father was entitled to consideration under the said policy. The petitioner’s father, namely Mahender Singh had 2 acres and 2 kanals of land in his share, constituting a separate unit. As such, the petitioner is fully eligible to seek a government job in terms of the policy dated 14.02.2012 (Annexure P-6), promising a government job to one member of each family that lost 2 or more acres of land. The petitioner is well qualified having matriculation with ITI certificate and apprenticeship training and filed representation seeking employment on 06.10.2023, which remained unheeded. Thereafter, he filed CWP-25901-2023, which was disposed of by this Court on

10.09.2025 (Annexure P-11) with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation. Despite 45 similarly situated candidates being appointed on 28.10.2024 pursuant to the Court directions, the petitioner's claim was arbitrarily rejected vide impugned order dated

24.12.2025 (Annexure P-15).

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that in terms of the order passed by this Court in CWP-5001-2017, titled as Satender vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 07.08.2023, along with other connected cases, the petitioner’s claim suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The policy was introduced in the year 2012 (Annexure P-6) whereas the petitioner remained indolent for 11 years and only represented as per his own pleadings in the year 2023. Furthermore, in Satender’s case (supra), the petitioners therein were diligent enough to approach this Court well in time in the year 2017 whereas the present petitioner slept over his rights and as such, by filing the present petition, he cannot revive the dead/stale claim. He further contends that the policy (Annexure P-6) provides a government job to one member of each family that lost 2 or more acr