IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-320-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.01.2026

Mandeep Singh and others

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Parbat K. Jalbera, Advocate

and Mr. Shivam Ahuja, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and grant the petitioners’ regularization of their services on account of their continuous service of 12-17 years in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs Union of India and others, 2025 AIR SC 296, Dharam Singh and others vs State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 and the judgments of this Court passed in CWP-19223-2017 titled as Parveen Kumar and others vs State of Punjab and others and CWP-21660-2023 titled as Pankaj Kumar

Sharma and others vs State of Punjab, etc. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to grant payment of salary to the petitioners in the minimum of the regular pay scale with DA from the date of their initial appointments on contract basis in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh, 2016 (4) SCT 641 and Sabha Shankar Dubey vs Divisional Forest Officer and others, 2019 (1) SCT 46, with arrears along with interest @ 12% per annum and also grant the petitioners all the consequential benefits.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are Class III and Class IV employees of the respondent/Marketing Board working on contractual basis since 06.12.2016 and January, 2017. They were initially appointed on outsource basis and have continuously served for 12 to 17 years without any substantive break fulfilling all the qualification. The petitioners are performing identical duties as regular employees but they are being paid a meagre salary, violating the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. The Finance Department itself vide letter dated 03.03.2025 has issued a Circular for granting the minimum pay scale + dearness allowance. Identically circumstanced employees and employees of other departments have already been regularized as discernible from Annexures P-7 and P-8, respectively. The petitioners served a legal notice on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-9), which remained unheeded.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the entitlement of the petitioners to be paid at least the minimum of the regular pay scale along with dearness allowance is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2016 (4) SCT 641 and Sabha Shankar Dubey vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others, 2019 (1) SCT 46, wherein it has been unequivocally held that contractual employees performing duties identical to those of regular employees are entitled to the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

5. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

6. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notice on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from t