119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.05.2026 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for responidents No.3 & 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The 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 mandamus directing the respondents to take the petitioner on the pay roll of the Municipal Corporation, Karnal as Safai Karamchari in view of the policy dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Government of Haryana and further direction to respondent No.4 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in the month of August, 2020 (Annexure P-6) for taking the petitioner on the roll of Municipal Corporation being fully eligible.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as Safai Karamchari in Municipal Corporation, Karnal in the year 2013 on contract basis through Man Power Service Providers and continuously worked upto July, 2020 as discernible from Annexure P-1. The petitioner became a member of EPFO and his contributory provident fund was regularly deducted from his monthly salary as discernible from Annexure P-2.

The Government of Haryana framed a policy on 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) vide which Safai Karamchari working through Man Power Service Agency during the period from 24.05.2018 to 06.09.2019 were taken on roll of Municipal Corporation, Karnal. This exercise was done by respondent No.3 upto July, 2020. The petitioner being fully eligible deposited all his documents i.e. pass book copy, PF account number to respondent No.3 but his name was kept in the list of ineligible candidates illegally, arbitrarily and without granting any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner filed an appeal in August, 2020 along with all service documents but the same has not been decided.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation, on instructions from respondent No.3, submits that no such appeal has been received till date. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches. In terms of the policy dated 06.09.2019, the entire exercise for taking employees working through Man Power Service Agencies on the rolls of the Municipal Corporation was concluded in July, 2020, whereas, the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2026. Learned counsel further submits that reliance placed by the petitioner upon Annexures P-9 to P-11 does not advance his case, as in those matters the concerned petitioners had actually filed appeals, whereas, in the present case, no appeal has been filed by the petitioner till date.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis in the year 2013 and a policy was framed on 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) was framed for taking on the rolls of the concerned Municipal Corporation those employees who had worked through Man Power Service Agencies during the period from 24.05.2018 to 06.09.2019. Admittedly, the entire exercise was concluded by respondent No.3 in the year 2020 itself. Although the petitioner asserts that he had filed an appeal in August, 2020, the same has been categorically denied by respondent No.3. There is also no dispute that the petitioner remained indolent for nearly six years before approaching this Court. Moreover, whether the petitioner has filed his appeal or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated