102+233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12018-2021 (O&M) DECIDED ON:02.12.2025 KRISHNA DEVI .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Ankur Goyat , Advocate and Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. RD Sharma DAG, Haryana SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer:

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioner services in terms of the Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 or 10.02.2004 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Government of Haryana or any other applicable policy, at par with other similarly situated employees, some of whom are stated to be junior to her.

Factual Matrix :

2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Sewer Helper (Group-D) with the respondent-department at Sonepat Division on daily wage basis on 07.01.1997. She continued working till her services were terminated in an alleged arbitrary manner on 01.03.2011. Aggrieved, she raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court, vide award dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-1), held her termination to be illegal and ordered her reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The writ petition filed by the department challenging the said award, CWP No. 7073 of 2017, was dismissed by this Court on 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-2). In compliance, the petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 01.08.2017 and has since been serving with the respondent-department.

3. Claiming that she had completed qualifying service under the Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 (Annexure P-3 and P-4), and asserting parity with other similarly situated employees who had been regularized, the petitioner sought regularization. Her claim was denied on the grounds that the policies stood withdrawn, that she had allegedly worked as a part- time sweeper, and that her appointment was not in accordance with constitutional recruitment procedure.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Sewer Helper (Group–D) on daily wage basis on 07.01.1997 and continuously worked with the respondent-department till her illegal termination on 01.03.2011. It is submitted that the said termination was set aside by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 07.04.2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The said award was upheld by this Court in CWP No. 7073 of 2017 decided on 03.04.2017 and, therefore, the findings regarding illegal termination and continuity of service have attained finality. It is argued that once continuity of service stands granted by a judicial order, the respondents are estopped from disputing the length and nature of the petitioner’s service.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner has rendered more than 24 years of continuous service and fully satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed under the regularization policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 issued by the Government of Haryana. The petitioner also relies upon the fact that several similarly situated daily wage Group–D employees, even juniors to the petitioner, have already been regularized by the respondent-department vide office orders dated 29.09.2014 and 07.10.2014. Thus, the denial of similar benefit to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner further contends that the withdrawal of the regularization policies in the year 2007 cannot defeat her claim since she had already completed the requisite qualifying service while the policy was in force and her claim stood frustrated only because of her illegal termination. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of this court in CWP No. 5908 of 2015 decided on 14.05.2018 (Annexure P-9), affirmed in LPA N