IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-38031-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.12.2025 Pramvir Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana for respondents No.1 & 4.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-11), vide which the legal notice dated 24.09.2025, seeking employment in lieu of land acquired, stands rejected and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the employment on a Group-C post to the petitioner, as he has passed ITI, at par with the persons, who have already been given offer of appointment by passing speaking order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-9).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that land of the petitioner’s family measuring 31 kanal 07 marlas was acquired in the year 2006 for setting up Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Plant in District Jhajjar. Thereafter, on 13.01.2014, the Government of Haryana issued a land oustees policy, as discernible from Annexure P-1, which provides employment to one member of the family, if the acquired land is more than 02 acres. The respondents have wrongly considered only individual land owners for employment and ignored the joint family holding of more than 02 acres. Further, this Court has already interpreted the policy (Annexure P-1) in CWP- 6505-2013 titled as Dharmender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 26.11.2015 (Annexure P-6) and CWP-12836-2018 titled as Vikul Jakhar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) and categorically held that the scheme focuses on the family as a unit and not individual land owners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that similarly situated land oustees were granted employment vide speaking order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-9) and appointment letters (Annexures P-10) had been issued to them in the months of June/July, 2025. However, claim of the petitioner seeking employment was rejected vide impugned order dated

23.11.2025 (Annexure P-11) on the ground that the same cannot be considered at a belated stage.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3- Corporation opposes the prayer made in the present petition on the ground that the petitioner, for the first time, made the representation by way of legal notice on 24.09.2025, which, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Further, reliance of the petitioner on the speaking order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-9) clearly indicates that the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were diligent enough to approach this Court well in time. Perusal of speaking order (Annexure P-9) indicates that the persons, who were offered appointment, had approached this Court in the years 2017 & 2018 and one person had filed the writ petition in the year 2021, whereas the petitioner remained indolent and fence-sitter and has filed the present petition only when others have been granted employment in terms of the directions issued by this Court. As such, the petitioner cannot validate his stale claim by filing a representation/legal notice or getting directions from this Court to decide the same.

5. Having learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that land of family of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2006 and land oustees policy was issued by the Government of Haryana in the year 2014, whereas the petitioner served the legal notice upon the respondents only on 24.09.2025 and that too, aft