IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1571-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Deepak Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, 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 certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-37) whereby claim of the petitioners for regularization on their respective posts has been wrongly declined/rejected by the respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. induction into the respondents/Department or from the date of joining the post in the Department with all service benefits connected with their respective posts along with interest. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondent/Corporation to decide the claim of the petitioners in view of the judgment dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-38) passed by this Court in CWP-6757-2020, titled as Kuldeep Kumar vs State of Punjab and others, by deciding the representation dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-39) in a time bound manner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were initially appointed during the year 2010–2011 on the posts of Inspector Grade-II, Senior Assistant and Driver in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (PUNSUP) through outsourcing agencies, namely M/s Gretius India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ascenture Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners possesses the requisite educational qualifications such as B.Tech, B.A., B.Com and MBA, and have continuously rendered uninterrupted service for more than 15 years in different Districts, while discharging duties identical to those performed by regular employees, yet they have been arbitrarily paid only consolidated/DC rates and denied the benefit of regularization. He further submits that the Board of Directors of PUNSUP, in its 199^th meeting held on 30.03.2012, specifically considered the issue of their regularization and observed that a policy decision was required in this regard (Annexure P-26), pursuant to which the petitioners submitted several representations and reminders seeking redressal of their grievance (Annexures P-25, P-29 and P-33, respectively). Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the State Government but the State Government, instead of taking a final decision, directed PUNSUP to decide the issue at its own level. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in utter disregard of the long and continuous service rendered by the petitioners and the recommendations under consideration, PUNSUP, rather than regularizing their services, engaged them on direct contract on DC rates vide order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P-32), and ultimately rejected their claim outright vide order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-37) without assigning any cogent or lawful justification. He further argues that the said rejection is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly when a similarly situated employee, namely Kuldeep Kumar, challenged the very same rejection order by filing CWP-6757-2020, which was allowed by this Court on 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-38) by granting him the appropriate relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the said judgment submits that the petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 26.12.2025 seeking parity and extension of the same benefit (Annexure P-39), however, the respondents have failed to take any decision thereon till date and this inaction on the part of the respondents, compelled the petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the representation dated 26.12