Sandip Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 1 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
101+202 CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2026
Sandip Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a
writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated
12.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) by which the services of the petitioner were
ordered to be terminated; and further direction be issued to consider the
claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the Policy decision
dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure P-4)
and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that vide order dated 03.06.2010, petitioner was appointed as
Data Entry Operator (DEO) on contract basis. The petitioner continued as
DIVYANSHI
such till 12.08.2014. As per the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 2 of 8
(Annexure P-3), employees who have completed 3 years of service as on
28.05.2014 are entitled for regularization. As such, as petitioner had
completed 3 years’ Service on 28.5.2014, he was entitled for
regularisation under said Policy.
3. Ld. Senior Counsel points out that the stand of the
respondents in their written statement for denying regularisation to the
petitioner as DEO is that, in terms of the aforesaid Policy dated 18.06.2014
(Annexure P-3) there was no available sanctioned post of DEO. Ld. Senior
counsel argues that the said stand of the respondents is untenable as, as
per Policy dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure P-4), DEO is entitled for
regularisation on post of Clerk.
4. Ld. Senior Counsel further points out that petitioner has
specifically mentioned in the present Writ Petition that post of Clerk is
available on the date of appointment of the petitioner; as also in the year
2014. As such, sole reason given by the respondents for not regularizing
the petitioner is not acceptable. He accordingly prays that the services of
the petitioner be regularized in terms of Policy dated 28.07.2014.
5. Per contra, led. State Counsel has opposed submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has pointed out that on
3.6.2010, petitioner was engaged in the office of Deputy Director,
Agriculture, Panipat. However, from 19.05.2012, petitioner remained
absent from duty without any intimation to the Deputy Director,
Agriculture, Panipat.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 3 of 8
6. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner was engaged in
the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonepat/present Authority vide
order dated 01.06.2012 (Annexure P-2). Thus, petitioner does not fulfill
the requisite condition of 3 years service as required under the Policy of
18.06.2014; and as such, services of the petitioner are not liable to be
regularized. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ
Petition.
7. At this stage, ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not
deny the above facts, however, seeks to rebut the submissions of the
respondent-State by submitting that vide impugned order dated
12.08.2014 (Annexure P-5), services of the petitioner were terminated
without assigning any reasons; and while also retaining persons junior to
the petitioner. It is submitted that due to good work done by the
petitioner, petitioner was given extension from 01.06.2014 till 31.05.2015.
However, even before expiry of the said term, services of the petitioner
were terminated vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-
5). He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and
following prayers be accepted: -
“iv) a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the
impugned order (P-5) by which the services of the petitioners
have been ordered to be terminated by retaining the juniors
and inspite of the fact that the petitioner was entitled
regularization in light of the policy decisions (P-3 and P-4) and
the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits;
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 4 of 8
v) a further writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to
consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light
of the policy decisions (P-3 and P-4) and petitioner be granted
all consequential benefits.”
8. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
9. It is not disputed that petitioner was engaged in the office of
Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonepat/present Authority vide order dated
01.06.2012 (Annexure P-2). The said engagement was subject to certain
terms and conditions as contained in the said order dated 01.06.2012; of
which condition No.2 unequivocally stipulates as follows:-
“2-Contract can be terminated unilaterally at any time
without assigning any reason without giving any notice
whatsoever.”
10. There is no challenge by the petitioner to the terms and
conditions of office employment/engagement. As such, no error can be
found in the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) whereby
contractual service of the petitioner was terminated.
11. Furthermore, services of the petitioner are not liable to be
regularized as it is undisputed that the condition precedent for
regularization as per the Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) is that
employee should have been in service for a minimum period of 3 years as
on 28.05.2014. As appointment of the petitioner is dated 01.06.2012,
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 5 of 8
petitioner does not fulfill the said condition of minimum service of 3 years
as on 28.05.2014. Consequentially, services of the petitioner are not liable
to be regularized in terms of the Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3).
12. A perusal of the record further shows that petitioner was
initially engaged as DEO in the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture,
Panipat on contractual basis through HARTRON for a period of one year
w.e.f. 03.06.2010. At different intervals, petitioner was allowed to
continue on the said post upto 31.05.2012. It is not disputed by ld. Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner did not attend office of Deputy
Director, Agriculture, Panipat w.e.f. 19.05.2012 without giving any
intimation or taking any permission from the Deputy Director, Agriculture,
Panipat.
13. Thereafter, petitioner started working in the office of Deputy
Director, Agriculture, Sonepat w.e.f. 01.06.2012. From the above facts, it
is clear that petitioner was engaged on contractual basis by two separate
Authorities and two different jurisdictions at different intervals. The said
two engagements of the petitioner in both the above said offices of
Deputy Director, Agriculture, Panipat and Deputy Director, Agriculture,
Sonepat were independent of each other and are not related in any
manner. It is but trite that had both the above said offices been
considered the same, petitioner would have been transferred from
Panipat to Sonepat. However, petitioner was freshly engaged in the office
of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonepat on the basis of request dated
DIVYANSHI 25.05.2012 made by the Deputy Director, Agriculture,
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 6 of 8
Sonepat/respondent No.3; in pursuance to which HARTRON
recommended name of the petitioner for his engagement as DEO on job
work basis. Thus, the tenure of the petitioner in both the offices cannot
be clubbed; thereby giving him unjustified advantage for regularization of
his services. As such, petitioner is not eligible for regularization in terms of
Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and/ or Policy dated 28.07.2014
(Annexure P-4).
14. It is further to be seen that the services of the petitioner
were terminated vide order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-5). No stay has
been granted by this Court at any stage. Thus, petitioner has been out of
job since 2014. For this reason, as well, claim of the petitioner is
untenable.
15. It is further relevant to note that as per condition No. 1(V) of
the Notification dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) work and conduct of
Group-C and D employees/workers engaged on contractual basis whose
services were to be considered for regularization, was required to be
satisfactory. However, in the case of the petitioner, the said condition was
not fulfilled; inasmuch as Vide Memo No. 2406, dated 22.09.2014
(Annexure R-2) respondent No. 3 had informed respondent No. 2 that
work and conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. Thus too, services
of the petitioner are not liable to be regularized. Relevant extract of the
aforementioned Memo No. 2406 dated 22.09.2014 (R-2) reads as follows:-
“The version of this contractual employee that his
services have been terminated because he had written for
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 7 of 8
sending his case for regularization is totally false because the
contractual employee submitted his TA bills amounting to Rs.
17310/- along with tour programme for the month of Sept.
2013 to June 2014 in this office on 21.07.2014 (photocopy of
the same is attached), on which he indicated name of his
post as Computer Operator, however, his orders were as Data
Entry Operator, But when undersigned enquired this matter
for its verification from QCI, Sonepat, as per his report, these
tour programmes were found false (photocopy enclosed). As
per his report this contractual employee did not make any
entry in the movement register and produce no proof of his
journeys from anywhere. In addition to this contractual
employee has shown tour on 18.10.2013, which was a
Gazetted holiday on dated 09.12.2013 & 10.12.2013 this
contractual employee was on leave, but is claiming TA for
09.12.2013(photocopy of leave application if enclosed) and
as per record no samples were sent to Uchani on dated
13.01.2014. However, this contractual employee is claiming
TA for Uchani on dated 13.01.2014, which establishes that
this contractual employee had performed these journeys at
his own. No prior approval from any officer was taken for
these journeys. The photocopies of tour programmes are
enclosed which clearly establishes that this contractual
employee is trying to embezzle the state funds to the tune of
an amount of Rs. 17310/-. Hence, on the basis of enquiry
conducted by QCI the contract of this contractual employee
was terminated on dated 12.08.2014.
As per condition no. 5 of Gazetted notification, the
work of contractual employee shall be satisfactory but
keeping in view the above facts, it would be appropriate to
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-20875-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-20579-2014 (O&M) 8 of 8
write that his work is not satisfactory and for non-completion
of three years' tenure, his case could not be sent.”
16. Furthermore, as per condition No. 1(ix) of Policy dated
18.6.2014, no relaxation shall be allowed in the criteria laid down for
regularization. As per clause No. 4 of the Notification dated 18.06.2014
(Annexure P-3) it had been clarified by the Government that " Since this
policy is a 'One time measure' on humanitarian ground, no person shall be
entitled to claim it as a matter of right, if found unsuitable due to non
fulfillment of conditions mentioned in these instructions ". Therefore, since,
the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite mandatory conditions hence
petitioner cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.
17. Keeping in view the conspectus of the above facts, there is no
merit in the present Writ Petition; and the same is accordingly dismissed .
18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
12.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document