1 CWP-2787-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 (2nd case) CWP-2787-2017 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.12.2016 (Annexure P-9) vide which the claim of petitioner for regularization was rejected. Further praying mandamus for issuance of a writ in the nature of directing respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for regularization in light of policy decision dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-2787-2017

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, sine die submits that the present petition had earlier been adjourned to await the decision in the Special Leave Petition arising out of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.17206 of 2014 Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.05.2018. It is submitted that the aforesaid controversy has now been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, reported as 2026 INSC 379, decided on 16.04.2026, along with connected matters. 2.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2009 of 2016 Balwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.01.2020, wherein the claim for regularization was considered in the light of the regularization policies issued by the State Government, including the policy dated 01.10.2003. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.688 of 2021 and connected matters, State of Haryana and others Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, decided on 02.12.2022.

2.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4531 of 2023 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-2787-2017 Balwinder Singh and others, which came to be dismissed on 09.01.2024. It is, accordingly, contended that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the applicable regularization policy and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 3. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may kindly be treated as a comprehensive representation and respondent No.2/competent authority be directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of judgments referred hereinabove (supra). 4. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in the light of judgments referred hereinabove (supra).

5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of judgments referred hereinabove (supra), in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-2787-2017 6. It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

1 CWP-2787-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 (2nd case) CWP-2787-2017 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.12.2016 (Annexure P-9) vide which the claim of petitioner for regularization was rejected. Further praying mandamus for issuance of a writ in the nature of directing respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for regularization in light of policy decision dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-2787-2017

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, sine die submits that the present petition had earlier been adjourned to await the decision in the Special Leave Petition arising out of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.17206 of 2014 Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.05.2018. It is submitted that the aforesaid controversy has now been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024, reported as 2026 INSC 379, decided on 16.04.2026, along with connected matters. 2.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2009 of 2016 Balwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.01.2020, wherein the claim for regularization was considered in the light of the regularization policies issued by the State Government, including the policy dated 01.10.2003. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.688 of 2021 and connected matters, State of Haryana and others Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, decided on 02.12.2022.

2.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.4531 of 2023 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-2787-2017 Balwinder Singh and others, which came to be dismissed on 09.01.2024. It is, accordingly, contended that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the applicable regularization policy and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 3. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may kindly be treated as a comprehensive representation and respondent No.2/competent authority be directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of judgments referred hereinabove (supra). 4. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in the light of judgments referred hereinabove (supra).

5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of judgments referred hereinabove (supra), in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-2787-2017 6. It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document