126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.01.2026 Amit Singla and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-11). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at par with their juniors after removing the pay anomaly which has arisen upon revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 including arrears of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 along with interest @ 9%

per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers pursuant to the advertisement No.276/12 in the year 2014. The petitioners earned promotions thereafter, and they were senior in the combined merit list as discernible from Annexures P-1 & P-2. The implementation of the revised pay scale with effect from

01.01.2016 (Annexure P-3), the basic pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.63,600/- while their juniors were fixed at Rs.67,500/-. The representations filed by the petitioners (Annexures P-4 to P-6) were rejected on the premise that the litigation in this regard is pending bearing CWP No.22355 of 2013. The said writ petition along with a bunch of four other cases has already been decided on 25.11.2013 as discernible from Annexure P-12, as such, making the rejection based on pending litigation is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Moreover, the action of fixing a senior employees’ pay lower than that of the junior violates the fundamental principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ under Article 14 and disturbs the seniority list pay structure governed by the Service Regulations (Annexure P-8).

3. Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and files his memorandum of appearance in the Court today which is taken on record. He is not in a position to controvert the fact that CWP No.22355 of 2013 was decided on 25.11.2013 (Annexure P-12) and the same is available on record.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it transpires that the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4 to P-6) and legal notice (Annexure P-9) were rejected by relying upon the pendency of CWP No.22355 of 2013. The aforesaid writ petition along with a bunch of four other cases were decided on 25.11.2013 (Annexure P-12), as such, the ground on which the representations and legal notice have been rejected is non-existent on the date when these impugned orders were passed.

5. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-11) is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-9) afresh and pass a speaking order, after affording them an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

14.01.2026 Neha