[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
CWP-8351-2024 and connected cases 1
176 (15 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
DECIDED ON: 24.12.2025
CWP-8351-2024
RATTANA
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-27623-2025
SONU AND ANOTHER
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-27926-2025
NAZIR SINGH
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-28165-2025
GIAN SINGH
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-28866-2025
RAMESHO DEVI
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 23:37:27 :::
CWP-8351-2024 and connected cases 2
CWP-30565-2025
SATYAWAN .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-31815-2025
PARAMJEET SINGH
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-32088-2025
SAT PAL @ GOPI
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-32211-2025
PREM SINGH PREMA
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-32939-2025
ANIL AND OTHERS
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-34282-2025
JASBIR SINGH
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 23:37:27 :::
CWP-8351-2024 and connected cases 3
CWP-3741-2025
RAJBIR
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-5592-2025
RAJBIR
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-37061-2025
SATBIR
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CWP-28398-2025
SURESH
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
Ms. Alka Sheoran, Advocate
Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Chaudhary and
Mr. S.B. Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate with
Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate
Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate
Mr. Aman Nain, Advocate with
Mr. Rishab Arora, Advocate
Mr. Dharmveer Phour, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG. Haryana
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 23:37:27 :::
CWP-8351-2024 and connected cases 4
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
Vide this common order, this Court intends to dispose of all the above-
said petitions, as a common question of law is involved therein. For brevity, the facts
are being taken from CWP-8351-2024.
Facts
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service with the
respondent Department in the year 1996 as a Baildar-cum-Mali and has been
continuously litigating for protection and regularization of his service due to repeated
illegal terminations by the respondents. The petitioner initially filed CWP No. 1085
of 2005 seeking regularization of his services. This Court, vide order dated
31.05.2005, directed the respondents to decide the representation made by the
petitioner; however, no effective action was taken by the respondents in compliance
with the said order. The services of the petitioner were thereafter terminated on
22.12.2008. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which culminated
in an award dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) in his favour, though without grant of
back wages. Challenging the denial of back wages, the petitioner filed CWP No.
12806 of 2012, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2018
(Annexure P-2). The respondents preferred an LPA against the said order; however,
the same was withdrawn on 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-3), thereby attaining finality.
Once again, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 01.10.2014. The
petitioner approached the learned Labour Court, which passed an award dated
29.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) in favour of the petitioner. The said award was challenged
by the respondents by filing CWP No. 14087 of 2017, which remains pending before
this Court as on 05.08.2024. In the said proceedings, since the petitioner had already
attained the age of superannuation, his reinstatement was stayed; however, the
respondents were directed to pay 50% back wages. During the intervening period, the
State of Haryana formulated a regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 for Group-D
4 of 6
employees who had completed three years of service (Annexure P-5). Being fully
eligible under the said policy, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
06.05.2012 seeking regularization of his services (Annexure P-6), but no favourable
decision was taken. The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No. 1150 of 2021, which was
decided by this Court on 13.10.2023 (Annexure P-8) with a direction to the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. In compliance
thereof, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 08.11.2023
(Annexure P-9) along with a copy of the Court order. However, the Division Forest
Officer, Kaithal, rejected the petitioner's representation vide order dated 05.12.2023
(Annexure P-10), without properly appreciating the facts, the applicable policy, and
the binding judicial precedents. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed
CWP No. 1389 of 2024, which was withdrawn on 06.02.2024 with liberty to file a
fresh petition with better particulars. It is pertinent to mention that similarly situated
workmen approached this Court seeking regularization of their services. Their writ
petitions were allowed, the LPAs filed by the Department were dismissed, and
ultimately the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the respondents were also
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-
11). The petitioner's claim for regularization is squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. Despite being similarly situated and
fully eligible, the petitioner has been denied regularization in an arbitrary and
discriminatory manner, compelling him to approach this Court by way of the present
writ petition.
Contention
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, appointed
in 1996 as Baildar-cum-Mali, is entitled to regularization under the policy dated
01.10.2003, having rendered long service and succeeded in multiple litigations
5 of 6
against illegal terminations. The rejection of his claim is arbitrary and discriminatory,
especially when similarly situated workmen have been regularized and such decisions
have attained finality up to the Supreme Court. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-26643-2025 and other
connected cases titled as 'Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr.' and seeks
parity with them.
On behalf of the State
Learned State Counsel categorically states that the reply filed in CWP-
26643-2025 and other connected cases titled as 'Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana
and anr.' be considered as written statement in all the matters mentioned above as no
separate reply is required to be filed since common question of law and facts is
involved therein. He further points out that this Court has already allowed the CWP-
26643-2025 and other connected cases vide order dated 23.12.2025. He does not
controvert the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioners are at parity with the petitioners in CWP-26643-2025.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the facts of the instant petitions are squarely
covered by the decision of this Court passed in Manoj Kumar's case (supra), hence,
the same are allowed in the same terms as in CWP-26643-2025.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s).
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
24.12.2025 JUDGE
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
6 of 6
