The court directed constitutional authorities to reconsider the claims for regularization of contractual employees in alignment with established policy and recent Supreme Court precedents, mandating a reasoned speaking order to ensure administrative transparency and equity.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been instituted invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the Government instructions dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), along with all consequential.

2. The petitioners were appointed as SDCs on daily wage basis against regular sanctioned posts on 31.01.2012 and 04.07.2012 respectively in the Panchayati Raj Department and, after change in nomenclature during the year 2015-16, have been working as Accounts Clerks under Outsourcing Policy Part-II. It is averred that the petitioners have rendered continuous and unblemished service for more than 14 years and, despite being eligible under Government instructions dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) providing for regularization of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees and despite regularization of similarly situated and senior employees, their services have not been regularized. It is further pleaded that the petitioners served a legal notice dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) seeking regularization, but no decision has been taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable Government policies and judicial precedents and to decide their pending legal notice.

3. The petitioners seek regularization of their services under the Haryana Government policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), which provides for regularization of contractual employees having completed three years of service as on 28.05.2014. Though the said policy was earlier quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2018 but the Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against the same has now upheld the policy vide judgment dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled Madan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others.

4. The petitioners contend that despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions and despite the fact that similarly situated employees have been regularized, their claim has not been considered by the respondents, compelling them to file the present writ petition seeking directions for regularization with all consequential benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government of Haryana issued a policy/notification dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) for regularization of the services of Group C and Group D employees who had completed more than three years of continuous service as on 28.05.2014, subject to certain conditions, which are culled out hereunder:-

(i) That the employee/worker should have worked for not less than 3(three) years as on 28th May May,2014and still in service.

(ii) That the employee/worker possessed the prescribed qualifications for the post on the date of appointment / engagement.

(iii) The post against which the regularization is be done should be a sanctioned vacant post at the time of initial appointment/engagement and also at the time of regularization.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed against regular sanctioned posts and have been continuously discharging their duties since the year 2012 without any break in service. It is argued that despite completion of more than 14 years of service and despite fulfillment of the conditions contained in the Government policy dated 18.06.2014, whereby employees completing three years of continuous service are entitled to regularization, the respondents have failed to regularize their services, whereas similarly situated employees senior to the petit