MANOJ KADIAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order dtd. 8/1/2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of petitioners No.1 to 9 on the post of LDC and petitioners No.10 to 19 on the post of ALM from the year 2008 without insisting on the condition of continuous/continued service of 10 years as on 10/4/2006.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners have been continuously working since the year 2008. The petitioners were appointed against the vacant posts in terms of the policy dtd. 12/3/2008 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners are performing the same duties as performed by the regular technical staff of the respondent-Nigam. The petitioners earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.5968 of 2023 seeking minimum pay scale and challenging a condition to join the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited portal which was disposed of on 13/10/2025 (Annexure P-6). He further relies upon the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No.13015 of 2021 titled as Manak Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 19/1/2026 along with bunch of petitions (Annexure P-8) and CWP No.4436 of 2026 titled as Poonam and another Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 13/2/2026 (Annexure P- 9). Further, the petitioners were working under the direct control, supervision and administrative authority of the respondent-Nigam. They are being paid only consolidated salary and not even paid the minimum pay scale. The service record of the petitioners is satisfactory and they are neither casual nor part time workers. Despite the existence of regularization policies, the respondents have resiled form them to deny benefits to the petitioners and other similarly situated outsourced employees in various departments of the Government of Haryana have been regularized in terms of the judgments rendered by this Court.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the petitioners are out source employees and they are not under any direct contract with the respondent-Nigam and have no right to seek regularization. On this ground alone, the dismissal of the present writ petition is urged. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioners are continuously working since the year 2008 and they are neither casual nor part time workers. The work performed by them is perennial and indispensable.