IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3558-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Rajnish Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. R.P.S. Jammu, Advocate with Mr. Jasbir Singh Thind, Advocate and Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Triptjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

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 mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Drivers as they were appointed between 20.12.2011 to 26.12.2014 and since then they are working regularly on contractual appointment and the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-10146-2023, titled as Manjeet Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.08.2025, in which the services of similarly situated employees were regularized. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to count the past service and to grant other benefits as per the judgment passed by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, passed in CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, passed in LPA No.1892 of 2019

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as Drivers between the year 2011 to 2014 on contractual basis. The petitioners have been continuously working since the date of their appointment and they have put in more than 10 years of service. He further submits that perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The petitioners are neither engaged as a part-time workers nor as a casual labourers. The petitioners’ continuous engagement on contract basis is violative of the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, as well as the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-35744-2025 titled as Anoop Singh vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.12.2025 which recognizes the right of long-serving contractual employees to be considered for regularization, however, the respondents have failed to take any decision in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in identical circumstance, the employees were directed to be regularized by this Court in Manjeet Singh’s case (supra)

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

3. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, appearing on advance notice, submits that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notice dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners and pass a speaking order in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Manjeet Singh’s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the