OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20396-2026 CWP Seema Devi Seema Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. JS Mor, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. JS Mor, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

#1. Present writ petition under Article etition under Articles 226/227 of for issuance of a Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider writ in the nature of directing the respondents to consider and regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P

18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) with 5) with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and all other attendant service benefits admissible as per law. all other attendant service benefits admissible as per law. all other attendant service benefits admissible as per law.

#2. It is inter alia submitted by learned submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Women and Child and Child Development Department, Haryana, in order to implement the scheme framed for implementation Haryana, in order to implement the scheme framed for implementation Haryana, in order to implement the scheme framed for implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had of the Protection of Women from Domestic Viol of the Protection of Women from Domestic Viol issued a Public Advertisement (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for issued a Public Advertisement (Annexure P issued a Public Advertisement (Annexure P various posts including the pos of Multipurpose Worker. Pursuant posts including the post of Multipurpose Worker. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners herein were appointed as Multipurpose Worker(s) thereto, the petitioners herein were appointed as Multipurpose Worker(s) thereto, the petitioners herein were appointed as Multipurpose Worker(s) on contractual basis, on the basis of interview and merit on contractual basis on the basis of interview and merit-based selection CWP-20396 20396-2026 -2- process against the sanctioned posts under the departmental scheme. process against the sanctioned posts under the dep process against the sanctioned posts under the dep Copy of appointment letters issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 15.02.2010 Copy of appointment letters issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 15.02.2010 Copy of appointment letters issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 15.02.2010 and petitioner No. 6 dated 25.02.2010 are annexed as Annexures P-2 and petitioner No. 6 dated 25.02.2010 are annexed as Annexures P and petitioner No. 6 dated 25.02.2010 are annexed as Annexures P 2/1, respectively. The petitioners have joined their duties as and P-2/1, respectively. The petitioners have joined their duties as 2/1, respectively. The petitioners have joined their duties as Multipurpose Worker on different dates at the place of their posting Multipurpose Worker on differe at the place of their posting in year 2010, as detailed in para No. 5 of the petition; and since then, they as detailed in para No. 5 of the petition; continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. are continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. continuing on the said post without break or any complaint.

#3. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue the Policies In the meantime, the respondent State had issue the Policies

6.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively). 6.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexure dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexure As per As per the Policy dated 16.06.2014 the Policy dated 16.06.2014 (Annexure P-4), Haryana Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, 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 who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitl who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitl regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5), regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have 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 completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are also entitled for completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are also entitled for regularization. It is submitted that the petitioners regularization. It is submitted that titioners who have joined the Department in the year 2010 as Multipurpose Worker Department in the year 2010 Multipurpose Worker, are entitled to regularization as per the aforesaid policies. regularization as per the aforesaid policies. In this regard, the petitioners No. 1 to 4 have submitted representation dated No. 1 to 4 have submitted representation dated 12.09.2017 as well as Notice dated 15.09.2017 (Annexures P-6 and P-8, respectively); Notice dated 15.09.2017 (Annexures P Legal Notice dated 15.09.2017 (Annexures P petitioner No. 5 submitted representation dated 19.09.2017 petitioner No. 5 submitted representation d whereas petitioner No. 5 submitted representation d (Annexure P-7), to the respondents to consider (Annexure P , to the respondents to consider their case for regularization. However, in the meantime, the aforesaid Policies regularization . However, in the meantime, the aforesaid Policies dated

16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of CWP-17206 Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of 17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of . Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, both the above Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, both the above Haryana and others CWP-20396 20396-2026 -3- said Policies were quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said Policies were quashed by this Court said Policies were quashed by this Court said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

#4. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on

16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid policies dated 16. 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid policies dated 16.06.2014 and .2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action 18.06.2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action .2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued elaborately specified. to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners individually to the respondents to consider the claim of the to the respondents to consider the claim of the for regularization in light of the policy decisions dated 16.06.2014 for regularization in light of the policy decision for regularization in light of the policy decision (Annexure P-4) or policy decision dated 18. (Annexure P ) or policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) and petitioners be granted all consequential benefits. be granted all consequential benefits.

#5. State counsel points out that the said issue came Learned State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810- for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 2025titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and 2025titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and 2025titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: aras of which, read as under: - Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, ered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026 the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court 6. elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the (supra), the permissible course of action available for the judgment of judgment of The The CWP-20396 20396-2026 -4- State to regularize services of the employees has been State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a 7. nt before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the princ claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submissions have been advanced Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). In that view of the matter, all the appeals are In that view of the matter, all t 9. disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment ion within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the appropriate order in respect of claim employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of In order to facilitate a fresh consid 10. the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ending misc. application(s), if any, also stand 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 It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the above terms. in the above terms.

#7. Learned counsel for the petitioner counsel for the petitioners submits that he has ‘no to the same. objection’ to the same. CWP-20396 20396-2026 -5-

#8. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Aas Mohammad and above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); with a direction to the State of others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment dated

16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 16.04.2026 e Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra). case (Supra)

#9. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2026

09.07.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No