OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21932-2026 CWP Virender Kumar Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
#1. Present writ petition under Article etition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the cla in the nature of m directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his of the petitioner for in light of the policy his services in light of the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) decision dated and in terms of the judgment 3) and in terms of the judgment Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on
16.04.2026 (Annexure P-6); as well as judgment dated 16.04.2026
12.05.2026 as well as judgment dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-7) in CWP-1770-2026 titled as (Annexure P Deepak Singh and others titled as Deepak Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, and further, vs. State of Haryana and others, service of the petitioner be and further, service of the petitioner be benefits including continuity of regularized along with all consequential benefits including continuity of benefits including continuity of regularized along with all consequent on, pay parity arrears and all other admissible service, seniority, pay fixation, pay parity arrears and all other admissible on, pay parity arrears and all other admissible service, seniority, pay fixati service benefits. service benefits.
#2. It is inter alia submitted by learned submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as petitioner that appointed as Data Entry Operator on CWP-21932 21932-2026 -2- contractual basis and joined as such on 21.02.2011, as is evident from contractual basis and joined as such on 21.0 contractual basis and joined as such on 21.0 letter dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure P-2); and since then, petitioner letter dated ; and since then, petitioner is ously working on the said post without any interruption. continuously working on the said post without any interruption. ously working on the said post without any interruption.
#3. In the meantime, the respondent State had issued the Policy In the meantime, the respondent State had issue dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P y it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioner has joined on 21.02.2011 as petitioner ha as Data Entry Operator, he is entitled to regularization as per aforesaid Policy (Annexure P entitled to Policy (Annexure P-3). In this regard, the petitioner has also moved a representation dated regard, the petitioner ha moved a representation dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) before the respondents to consider (Annexure P respondents to consider his case for regularization. However, in the meantime, the regularization . However, in the meantime, the Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) was challenged before this Court by way of (Annexure challenged before this Court by way of CWP- 17206-2014 Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana 2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Polic and others . Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Policy was quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said quashed by this Court on the ground that said Policy violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 20 Jul 2026. The bench was NIDHI GUPTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.