IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : 13.01.2026

Jasveer Singh and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate with

Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate for the petitioner.

NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Peons (Group-D/Class IV) and to grant all consequential and actual benefits including arrears of pay and salary w.e.f. expiry of three years of service from the original date of appointment in terms of the policy instructions dated 18.03.2011

(Annexure P-4) issued by the State of Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as Group-D employees since the year 2012 on contract basis. The said appointments were made after following the due procedure of law. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.11427 of 2015 titled as ‘Sukhjad Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-6), wherein the policy instructions dated 18.03.2011 have been interpreted for the purpose of regularization of services of

contractual employees within the State of Punjab. He further submits that complying with the directions issued in CWP No.290 of 2023 titled as ‘Jyoti Rana and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) and CWP No.19307 of 2020 titled as ‘Darshan Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and another’ decided on 21.05.2025, similarly situated persons have already been regularized by the respondents, vide orders dated 16.11.2025 (Annexure P-12). He further submits that for redressal of their grievances, the petitioners have also submitted representation dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-15) to the respondents which is still pending consideration. He further submits that the petitioners may be given liberty to supplement the abovesaid representation by issuance of justice demand notice and appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said justice demand notice, by passing a speaking order, in a time bound manner.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. He has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6. Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 that if any such justice demand notice is served upon by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in the light of judgments in Sukhjad Singh’s case (supra), Darshan Kumar’s case (supra) and Jyoti Rana’s case (supra) and by considering the office orders Annexures P-12 to P-14 within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Further, the decision taken thereon shall be conveyed to the petitioners.

(NAMIT KUMAR)

13.01.2026 JUDGE kothiyal