Neeraj Rani & Ors. v. State of Haryana) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of Neeraj Rani
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL **** Present: Mr. Aakash Juneja, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. Arvind Seth, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI **** Sandeep Moudgil, J. (1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on their respective posts from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits in view of the order dated 18.04.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of similar writ petitions including in CWP-35408-2025 (Neeraj Rani & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.). (2). Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel are ad idem and do not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the dictum of this Court rendered in Neeraj Rani & Ors. case (supra). (3). Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of Neeraj Rani & Ors. case (supra) with a direction that the respondents shall be bound by the observations and directions issued by this Court in Neeraj Rani & Ors. case (supra) as well. (4). Ordered accordingly.
29.05.2026 V.Vishal
Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? : : (Sandeep Moudgil) Judge Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of Neeraj Rani
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 May 2026. The bench was SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.