CWP-26707-2026 CWP-26707-2026 !" ! # BALA DEVI AND OTHERS $ %%%% &&&& &&&& &&&& &&&& ' ( ) **** ++++ ,,,, **** &&&& &&&& $ *$ $- ) ./0 $ 1 /1 2 )- $ 1 ( $ *$ Naveen Panwar DAG, Haryana. **** &&&& 2222 3333 $$$$ 45454545 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from 12.05.2005, i.e. the date on which their juniors were regularized, and further seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 12.05.2005 along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV Part-Time employees during PARUL VERMA 2026.08.21 17:15 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26707-2026

the period from 1991 to 2002 (Annexure P-1) and were subsequently regularized between 2011 and 2018 (Annexure P-2 and P-3). He submits that employees junior to the petitioners, namely Bhup Singh and Ram Niwas, were granted regularization with effect from 12.05.2005, which orders were upheld by this Court vide orders dated 22.07.2008 and 24.02.2026 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). It is further contended that similarly situated employees have also been granted the benefit of regularization with effect from 12.05.2005 vide order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel argues that the petitioners, being senior and similarly situated, cannot be denied the same benefit, particularly when the respondents have extended such benefit to their juniors and other similarly situated employees. Despite repeated representations, the grievance of the petitioners has not been redressed. He further submits that the petitioners were constrained to serve a Legal Notice dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-7), which has also elicited no response or consequential action from the respondents. Thus, the continued denial of regularization to the petitioners with effect from 12.05.2005 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of equality and parity. 6 , $ ) / 4 $ 1 ( $ 1 7 /80 1 1 9 /4) 8 ) ) $ / ) $ ( ) : 0( / 1 $ ; ) ) 1 4 7 4 ) ) ! !< ! # 3 =/$ ><5 1 4 71 =/$ >? >#2 8; ( 7 ( @ 7 $) $ 0 8 / ) 0 $ 4. Notice of motion. PARUL VERMA 2026.08.21 17:15 I attest the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment 6 CWP-26707-2026 5. Mr. Naveen Panwar, learned DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to hear and decide the legal notice dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-7), by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 6. In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to hear and decide the legal notice dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-7), filed by the petitioners in the light of Annexures P-4 to P-6 in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to them forthwith by respondents/competent authority. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. !" ! # 3333 &&&& 5555 A1 1 $ ( @ 7:$ ) : A1 1 $ ( $ 84 : PARUL VERMA 2026.08.21 17:15 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-26707-2026 CWP-26707-2026 !" ! # BALA DEVI AND OTHERS $ %%%% &&&& &&&& &&&& &&&& ' ( ) **** ++++ ,,,, **** &&&& &&&& $ *$ $- ) ./0 $ 1 /1 2 )- $ 1 ( $ *$ Naveen Panwar DAG, Haryana. **** &&&& 2222 3333 $$$$ 45454545 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from 12.05.2005, i.e. the date on which their juniors were regularized, and further seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 12.05.2005 along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV Part-Time employees during PARUL VERMA 2026.08.21 17:15 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-26707-2026

the period from 1991 to 2002 (Annexure P-1) and were subsequently regularized between 2011 and 2018 (Annexure P-2 and P-3). He submits that employees junior to the petitioners, namely Bhup Singh and Ram Niwas, were granted regularization with effect from 12.05.2005, which orders were upheld by this Court vide orders dated 22.07.2008 and 24.02.2026 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). It is further contended that similarly situated employees have also been granted the benefit of regularization with effect from 12.05.2005 vide order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel argues that the petitioners, being senior and similarly situated, cannot be denied the same benefit, particularly when the respondents have extended such benefit to their juniors and other similarly situated employees. Despite repeated representations, the grievance of the petitioners has not been redressed. He further submits that the petitioners were constrained to serve a Legal Notice dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-7), which has also elicited no response or consequential action from the respondents. Thus, the continued denial of regularization to the petitioners with effect from 12.05.2005 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of equality and parity. 6 , $ ) / 4 $ 1 ( $ 1 7 /80 1 1 9 /4) 8 ) ) $ / ) $ ( ) : 0( / 1 $ ; ) ) 1 4 7 4 ) ) ! !< ! # 3 =/$ ><5 1 4 71 =/$ >? >#2 8; ( 7 ( @ 7 $) $ 0 8 / ) 0 $ 4. Notice of motion. PARUL VERMA 2026.08.21 17:15 I attest the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment 6 CWP-26707-2026 5. Mr. Naveen Panwar, learned DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to hear and decide the legal notice dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-7), by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 6. In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to hear and decide the legal notice dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-7), filed by the petitioners in the light of Annexures P-4 to P-6 in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to them forthwith by respondents/competent authority. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. !" ! # 3333 &&&& 5555 A1 1 $ ( @ 7:$ ) : A1 1 $ ( $ 84 : PARUL VERMA 2026.08.21 17:15 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment