IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 19.12.2025 AFALATOON .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer

1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or in any other nature thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the regularization Policy issued by the respondent and further to regularize the petitioner from the date, the Junior to the petitioner have been regularized and to pay minimum of scale to the petitioner as it is being paid to his counter-part regular employee and also to set aside the order dated 25.03.2015 (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondents.

Brief facts

2. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in 1985 and has continuously worked at various places in District Yamuna Nagar with an unblemished service record and to the complete satisfaction of the respondent department, without any adverse entry or allegation. Despite fulfillment of eligibility under the amended regularization policy, wherein the requirement of five years’ service was reduced to three years, the respondents have failed to consider her case, even though seniority lists and relevant documents were issued and names of eligible persons were forwarded by the department as far back as

2014.

3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 9903 of 2021, and despite submitting all requisite documents pursuant to the Court’s directions, no action has been taken by the respondents. The continued non-consideration of the petitioner’s case, despite regularization of similarly situated employees, is arbitrary and unjustified, necessitating the present petition.

Contentions On behalf of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged by the respondent-department on daily wage basis since the year 1985 and has been continuously working till date. His work and conduct have remained satisfactory throughout, and there is no allegation or adverse material against him. 5. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been performing duties of a perennial nature, which are essential for the functioning of the department, and thus his engagement cannot be treated as casual or temporary in nature for an indefinite period.

6. The petitioner has continued to work with the department for a substantial period and has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner fulfills the essential requirement of long duration of service and was in engagement with the respondent department well before the cut-off dates prescribed under the relevant regularization policies, particularly the 1996 policy. It is argued that the petitioner has completed more than the minimum qualifying period of service prescribed under the applicable policy and, therefore, his case ought to have been considered for regularization by the respondents.

7. Learned counsel points out that several other employees who were engaged after the petitioner have been granted the benefit of regularization, whereas the petitioner has been left out without any justifiable reason.

8. It is submitted that despite the availability of regularization policies and the petitioner’s long association with the department, even after the direction by this Court in CWP No. 19946 of 2014, and despite submitting all requisite documents pursuant to the Court’s directions the respondents have failed to grant regularization of his services by passing the impugned order dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) which amounts to arbitrariness.

On behalf of the respondents

9. Learned counsel for the respond