CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Ranveer Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) or policy decision dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by HARTRON, the name of the petitioner was recommended for the post of Network Engineer to the respondent-Department. Pursuant thereto, petitioner joined as Network Engineer on 12.5.2011; and since then, petitioner is continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 2 of 5

3. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue the Policies dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4). As per the Policy dated 16.06.2014, Haryana Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled to regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4), it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are also entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioner had joined on 12.5.2011 as Network Engineer, petitioner was entitled to regularisation as per the aforesaid policies. In this regard, the petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 24.6.2014 (Annexure P-5), to the respondents to consider this case for regularisation. However, in the meantime, the aforesaid Policies dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of CWP-17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, both the above said Policies were quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

4. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid policies dated 16.6.2014 and 18.6.2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 3 of 5 to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) or policy decision dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. 5. Ld. State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026.

6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 4 of 5 orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra).

9. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 5 of 5 a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

6. It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the above terms. 7. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection to the same. 8. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Aas Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of six months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026. 9. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 08.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Ranveer Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) or policy decision dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) issued by HARTRON, the name of the petitioner was recommended for the post of Network Engineer to the respondent-Department. Pursuant thereto, petitioner joined as Network Engineer on 12.5.2011; and since then, petitioner is continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 2 of 5

3. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue the Policies dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4). As per the Policy dated 16.06.2014, Haryana Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled to regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4), it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are also entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioner had joined on 12.5.2011 as Network Engineer, petitioner was entitled to regularisation as per the aforesaid policies. In this regard, the petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 24.6.2014 (Annexure P-5), to the respondents to consider this case for regularisation. However, in the meantime, the aforesaid Policies dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of CWP-17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, both the above said Policies were quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

4. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid policies dated 16.6.2014 and 18.6.2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 3 of 5 to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) or policy decision dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. 5. Ld. State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026.

6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 4 of 5 orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra).

9. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20354-2026 (O&M) 5 of 5 a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

6. It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the above terms. 7. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection to the same. 8. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Aas Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of six months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026. 9. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 08.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.09 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document