IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-38147-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.02.2026 Khazan Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Present petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3, vide which claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 02.01.2014 has been rejected and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-3) and the decision dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-13).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that vide office order dated 15.12.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Cattle Pond Moharrir on daily wages and was posted in Village Rathpur, Pinjore, where he worked upto 18.08.1999. On 01.10.2003, Government of Haryana framed a regularization policy (Annexure P-3), wherein it is provided that services of the employees, who have completed 03 years, would be regularized. Consequent to his transfer from Rathpur to Kharak Mangoli as Muharar w.e.f. 19.08.1999. Thereafter, vide letter dated 12.10.2001, the petitioner was transferred under the management of Municipal Committee, Panchkula, however, he was not allowed to join there on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifications and due to non-availability of sanctioned post of Muharar. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute bearing Ref. No.327 of 2002 against termination of his services, which was allowed vide award dated 21.09.2005 with a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages with immediate effect. However, the said award was challenged by respondent No.3 before this Court by way of filing CWP-19946-2005 and during pendency of the same, the petitioner was joined on the post of Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.06.2006. The said petition was partly allowed vide judgment dated 03.07.2007 with a direction that back wages be allowed to the extent of 25% only.

3. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted representations dated 10.12.2008 and 04.06.2012 (Annexure P-7) requesting the respondents to regularize his services, however, the same were not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP-22872-2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2012 with a direction to decide the aforesaid representations (Annexure P-7). Further, finding the petitioner eligible for regularization under the policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-3), his services were regularized vide order dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure P-11) with effect from the date of passing of the said order. However, the respondents forcibly obtained an affidavit from the petitioner to the effect that his services would be regularized only if he would give an undertaking not to claim the benefits of his past service. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the respondents to regularized his services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 02.01.2014, however, nothing was done. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. CWP-18669-2024 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-15) with a direction to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-11) therein. In purported compliance, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) solely on the basis of undertaking obtained from him.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment ren