AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 228 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 15.05.2020 whereby respondent has regularized their services w.e.f. 06.08.2014 instead of 31.01.1996.
The petitioners were engaged as Water Carrier/Barber/Sweeper/ Washerman from 1987 to 1993. Their services were regularized by the respondent w.e.f. 06.08.2014 under 2014 Policy. The respondent has regularized several juniors under 1996 Policy of regularization ignoring their claim. They have served legal notice dated 24.02.2020 upon the respondent seeking regularization under 1996 and 2004 Policy. The respondent vide order dated 15.05.2020 has rejected their claim.
The case of petitioners is squarely covered by order passed by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2025 SCC ONLINE P&H 2828.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is claiming that findings recorded by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar (supra) with respect to employees who were regularized under 2014 Policy despite their appointment much prior to 2014, needs to be reconsidered in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malathi Das (Retd.) and others V/s Suresh and others, 2014 (13) SCC 249.
This Court does not find any reason to form an opinion contrary to opinion formed in the case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra).
Dismissed.
Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.