Tuesday, 02, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Haryana And Others vs Meer Lal
2024 Latest Caselaw 19270 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19270 P&H
Judgement Date : 19 October, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana And Others vs Meer Lal on 19 October, 2024

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139883-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.114                                                            LPA-2551-2024 (O&M)
                                                                Date of decision : 19.10.2024

State of Haryana and others                                                      ..... Appellants

                                            Versus

Meer Lal                                                                         ..... Respondent

CORAM :       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present :     Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

                                        *****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1. In a bunch of petitions in which the lead case was CWP-2158-2020-Ashish

Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others the issue raised before a learned

Single Judge of this Court was with regard to regularization of the services of the

petitioners therein. The matter was considered in much detail and the entire bunch of

petitions was disposed of with issuance of the following directions: -

"43. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of in the terms and conditions mentioned herein before. Let the respondent-State pass appropriate speaking order as directed herein before. In case, any of the petitioner is found entitled for regularization/retrospective regularization of services from the date employees junior to him/her has been regularized, they will be granted the said date of regularization otherwise due reasons be mentioned in the speaking order keeping in mind the directions given by the Court herein before so as to decide the eligibility of each petitioners qua their respective claims. Further in case any of the petitioners is found entitled for regularization of his services retrospectively the said benefit shall be given notionally, no arrears will be granted to the petitioners up to the date of filing of the respective petitions. The petitioners will be entitled for fixing of their salaries from the date of regularization notionally and the arrears will only be extended from the date of filing of their respective petitions before this Court and if any of the petitioners has already retired, his/her pensionary benefits will also be fixed/revised and arrears will also be extended from the date of filing the petition by the said petitioner."

2. When the respondent's petition, through which he also claimed

regularization of his services, came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge,

learned counsel for the respondent's sought disposal of the respondent's petition in terms

of Ashish Sharma's case (supra). The learned State counsel specifically made a

statement that the respondent's case will be considered by the State in terms of Ashish

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139883-DB

LPA-2551-2024 (O&M) [2]

Sharma's case (supra) in a time bound manner. In view of the afore statement on behalf

of the State the respondent's writ petition was disposed of as not pressed.

3. Before us, the learned State counsel assails the impugned judgment by the

learned Single Judge by submitting that both on facts and law the respondent's case is not

covered by Ashish Sharma's case (supra).

4. Once, before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the

State had specifically stated that the State would consider the respondent's claim in terms

of the judgment in Ashish Sharma's case (supra) and in the grounds of the present appeal

as also through the submissions made before us the afore statement made on behalf of the

State before the learned Single Judge is not disputed, we are not inclined to accept the

afore submission made on behalf of the State.

5. Dismissed.

6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.



                                                                      [DEEPAK SIBAL]
                                                                          JUDGE


19.10.2024                                                          [DEEPAK MANCHANDA]
shamsher                                                                   JUDGE
                      Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes / No
                      Whether reportable        :        Yes / No




                                                2 of 2

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter