HEETENDRA KR ARUN vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 CWP-3823-2016 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 HEETENDRA KR ARUN ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was granted regularization vide order dated 18.07.2014, Annexure P-12, in terms of the policy dated 18.06.2014, as amended on 19.08.2014, with a few conditions including there to be no break of more than 30 days as per the Instructions, which were not notified and as such, the same could not have supplanted the initial notification, vide which he was regularized. Be that as it may, the absence for more than 30 days was on account of reasons beyond his control, he having met with an accident, for which documents have been placed on record as Annexures P-18 to 21 and reliance is placed on the judgment in Anand Kumar vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, CWP-8715-1994, decided on 13.09.1994. Further that, his case is squarely covered by the ju