SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 2379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
BALJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. – Respondent



##PAGE1##

1

CWP-26602-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

202 CWP-26602-2013

Date of Decision: January 31, 2026

Baljit Singh

..Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Advocate with Mr. Gurlabh S. Bhaika

Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary as well as interest on

the same at the rate of 18% p.a. on account of delayed payment.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

joined service of respondent-Municipal Council, Sangat on 10.02.1986 daily

wage basis. The services of the petitioner were illegally terminated but the

Labour Court, Bathinda ordered him to be reinstated with continuity of

service. This award was challenged the respondent-Council before this

1 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 15-02-2026 20:16:06 :::

##PAGE2##

2

CWP-26602-2013

Court by filing a writ petition, however, the same was withdrawn as the

petitioner was ordered to be regularised by resolution No.225 dated

23.02.2000 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the delay in regularisation of his

service, in spite of the resolution (supra), the petitioner filed CWP No.4588

of 2001 before this Court praying for a direction to implement the resolution

(supra) with consequential benefits. During the pendency of the same, the

Executive Officer sent a letter dated 26.08.2011 to the petitioner requesting

him to withdraw the same, which he did as reflected in order dated

13.09.2011 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, he was regularised vide office order

dated 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-9) as a pump operator. Considering the

resolution approving his regularisation was passed on 23.02.2000, the

petitioner requested the respondent-Council to pay him the arrears of salary

on regular scale from the said date. Vide letter dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure

P-3), the Executive Officer informed the petitioner that he would be paid

arrears of salary after deducting the amount paid to him as wages as well as

the towards the P.F. within a period of 03 months. In spite of order dated

18.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) and various representations, the petitioner has

not been paid the arrears on account of difference in salary.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Council submits

that the operation of resolution (supra) was stayed by the competent

authority owing to the fact that the petitioner did not hold the requisite ITI

diploma. The resolution No.225 dated 23.02.2000 was stayed by the

Director, Local Government, being the competent authority, for lack of the

said technical qualification, causing the petitioner to file CWP No.4588 of

2 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 15-02-2026 20:16:06 :::

##PAGE3##

3

CWP-26602-2013

2001. Thereafter, vide resolution No.33 dated 28.01.2008, the services of the

petitioner were regularised on humanitarian grounds as well as in view of

the experience gained by him. Furthermore, the petitioner surrendered his

claim to the arrears by giving an affidavit dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure R-

3/3) in terms with the order dated 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-9), which is not

under challenge. The petitioner was permitted to take benefit of his earlier

service vide letter dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) sent by the Executive

Officer, however, it was subsequently found to be forged. Moreover, the

Executive Officer did not have to authority to make such an order, causing

the General Body of the respondent-Council to set aside letter dated

18.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) vide resolution dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure R-

3/1).

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

the record, it transpires that the petitioner has been serving the respondent-

Council since 10.02.1986 and was initially orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top