Chander Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 1 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
119 CWP-36742-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
Chander Singh and another ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a
Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize
the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.1996 instead of 01.10.2003, in
terms of the judgment dated 27.04.2016 Annexure P-13 in the same
manner as similarly situated employees of the same office have been
regularized by the respondents, and to grant all consequential benefits
accruing in favour of the petitioners; and for the issuance of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioners that
petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis as Mali-cum-Beldar against
DIVYANSHI
permanent post in the office of respondent No.3 on about 02.01.1978 and
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 2 of 8
04.04.1982 respectively. Services of the petitioner No.1 were terminated
illegally and verbally on 1.9.1999; in respect of which Petitioner No.1 had
raised an industrial dispute on 05.03.2002. Vide Award dated 27.02.2008
(Annexure P-1), petitioner No.1 was directed to be reinstated with
continuity of service and backwages.
3. Ld. Counsel submits that since the date of their initial
appointments, petitioners had been working continuously to the
satisfaction of the respondents. Respondents had notified Regularization
Policy dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-2); which was modified vide Policy
dated 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-3) reducing minimum years of service from
5 to 3 years as on 31.01.1996. Another Regularization Policy dated
01.10.2003 (Annexure P-4) was notified under which the petitioners were
regularized, vide office orders dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure P-6) and
21.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) respectively.
4. It is contended that however, the petitioners were entitled to
be regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996 as eligible under the Instructions dated
07.03.1996 (Annexure P-2)/ 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-3). It is contended
that petitioners had made repeated requests in this regard, which had not
been accepted by the respondents. Petitioner No.1 along with other
similar situate persons, had also filed CWP-3901-2013 titled as Krishan
and others vs. State of Haryana and others , which was allowed vide
judgment dated 28.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) in terms of order of even date
passed in CWP-10017-2011 titled as Khajjan Singh and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others . The said judgment dated 28.05.2014 was challenged
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 3 of 8
by the respondents vide LPA-950-2015 , which was dismissed by Division
Bench of this Court on 21.07.2015. It is only thereafter that services of
petitioner No.1 were regularized vide order dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure
P-6). Thereafter, services of petitioner No.2 were also regularized vide
order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-8). The respondents then filed a
SLP(C) No. 9965-9974 of 2016 titled as State of Haryana and others vs.
Khajjan Singh and others , which was dismissed vide judgment dated
09.01.2024 (Annexure P-9). It is contended that however, the services of
the petitioners have been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2003; whereas
petitioners were liable to regularized from 01.02.1996.
5. Ld. Counsel submits that as per RTI Information dated
03.03.2011 (Annexure P-10), petitioners have come to know that persons
similarly situated as the petitioners have been regularized w.e.f.
01.02.1996. As such, petitioners are also entitled to regularization w.e.f.
01.02.1996. Moreover, same controversy already stands decided by
Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2016 passed in
LPA-1407-2015 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Pawan Kumar
and another (Annexure P-13). Thereafter, petitioners had again made
several oral and written representations to the respondents to regularize
their services w.e.f. 01.02.1996 however, to no avail. Petitioners have even
served a legal notice dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-15) through counsel
calling upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners
however, to no avail. He accordingly submits that the said action of the
respondents is discriminatory because the respondents themselves
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 4 of 8
regularized similarly situated employees of the same office w.e.f.
01.02.1996. Giving the petitioners a later date, though they are identically
placed, is hostile discrimination which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. There is no intelligible differentia having a rational
nexus with any object.
6. It is further submitted that even employees appointed in
1988 and later have been given the benefit of regularization w.e.f.
01.02.1996, while the petitioners have been denied the same.
7. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed;
and following prayer be accepted: -
“(iii) for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.1996 instead of 01.10.2003, in term of
the judgment dated 27.04.2016 Annexure P-13 in the same
manner as similarly situated employees of the same office
have been regularized by the respondents, and to grant all
consequential benefits accruing in favour of the petitioners;
and for the issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners and has contended that the claim of the petitioners is barred
by delay and laches. No such objection was raised by the petitioners at the
time of their regularization vide office orders dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 5 of 8
P-6) and 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-8). In the meantime, petitioner No.1 has
also retired on 31.03.2018 and petitioner No.2 has retired on 30.11.2020.
He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
9. 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 petitioners.
10. Services of the petitioners were regularized vide office orders
dated 02.01.2015 (Annexure P-6) and 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-8) w.e.f.
01.10.2003. As pointed out by ld. State Counsel, no objection whatsoever
was raised by the petitioners at that time that petitioners ought to have
been regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996. In fact, nothing is pointed out by the
petitioners to this Court, that any such plea/objection was taken by them
even in the previous litigation emanating from CWP-3901-2013. As such,
petitioners have acquiesced to their regularization w.e.f. 01.10.2003. Thus,
claim of the petitioners is also barred by delay and laches.
11. Further, Petitioners are seeking regularization from
01.02.1996 on the strength of RTI Information dated 03.03.2011
(Annexure P-10); and the judgment dated 27.04.2016 passed in LPA-1407-
2015 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Pawan Kumar and another
(Annexure P-13). Whereas, present Writ Petition has been filed only on
27.10.2026. Clearly, therefore, claim of the petitioners is barred by delay
and laches. Even no reason, let alone any cogent reason whatsoever is
forthcoming from the Writ Petition to explain the said huge delay in
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 6 of 8
approaching this Court. Thus, claim of the petitioners is not maintainable
at this stage.
12. The issue of delay and parity stands settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984 , holding as under: -
“ A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the
benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence
sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly
situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are
not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well
recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well
as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss
claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment
pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to
give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they
approached the Court or not.
B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 -
Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged -
Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged
after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved
persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches
in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally
unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order
of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.”
The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:-
“23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of
the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well
as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 7 of 8
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article  14  of the Constitution of India.
This principle needs to be applied in service matters more
emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons
should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would
be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not
approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated
differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same
and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that
their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in
time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot
claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of
similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such
a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person.
Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the
decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36742-2026 (O&M) 8 of 8
regularisation and the like (see  K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of
India  (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court
was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment
shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an
intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be
impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said
judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their
petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.”
13. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And
Haryana): Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein
it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially
when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's
rights.”
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said factual and legal position.
15. Consequentially, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition
and the same stands dismissed .
16. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
05.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.11 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document