IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7274-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Ram Niwas ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhdeep S. Parmar, Advocate for the respondents.

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 certiorari, for quashing the order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent No.2 vide which the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay the regular pay scale of the post of Chowkidar and to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 2002 with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed against a sanctioned post of Chowkidar on 01.05.1996 in the office of respondent No. 3 on a daily wage basis. His services were subsequently terminated on 01.03.1997, which led to a labor dispute. Vide an award dated 01.03.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of the demand notice. Consequently, he was taken back into service on 14.06.2002 and he has been continuously working on the post of Chowkidar since then. The Government of Haryana issued various policies for regularization of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees working on daily wages, including policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent instructions dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) for regularization of left-over Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees working on daily wages/work charge basis. Consequently, the name of the petitioner was strongly recommended by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jind vide Memo No.3754 dated 11.09.2014; Memo No.1590 dated 16.03.2015 and Memo No.3069 dated 03.08.2016, for regularization, however, no final decision was taken on the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served the respondents with the legal notice dated 05.02.2021, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure P-12).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has rendered uninterrupted service for more than 23 years after his reinstatement pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court and is entitled to regularization as per the policies dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Government of Haryana. He further submits that the Estate Officer, HSVP, Jind, had strongly recommended the petitioner’s name for regularization multiple times, specifically noting that he is the only Group D employee in that office serving since 01.05.1996 whose services require regularization. He further argues that similarly situated employees have already been regularized pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWP-11605-2016 titled as Jagdish vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, decided on 29.08.2018 along with the connected case, which was upheld in LPA-1254-2019 decided on 23.07.2019, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide impugned order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-16) is arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was considered but could not be finalized as the matter regarding the validity of the 2014 regularization policy is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.31566 of 2018, titled as State of Haryana vs Yogesh Tyagi and another. He further contends that the petitioner’s engagement was on a daily wage basis and, by following the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner does