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

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondents (through V.C.).

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 speaking order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P- 2). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioners pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 w.e.f.

01.01.1996 in view of letter dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-9).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners joined the respondent-Department as Clerks and thereafter, promoted as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite being worked in the common cadre, under the same employer and having a common seniority list & service rules, the Clerks/petitioners designated as Junior Assistants after 01.01.1996 placed in the pay scale of 4400-7000, whereas, without any reasonable justification, the clerks designated as Junior Assistants before 01.01.1996 are placed in the pay scale of 5000-8100, which is arbitrary and discriminatory and against the doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work.’ On 16.01.1998, in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, the pay scales were revised to Rs.5000 to 8100 for all Junior Assistants with effect from 01.01.1996 (Annexure P-3). However, the First Amendment Rules dated 19.05.1998 created an anomaly by restricting the higher scale of Rs.5000-8100 only to those Junior Assistants placed in the cadre prior to 01.01.1996 and granting a lower scale of Rs.4400-7000 to those like the petitioners placed on or before 01.01.1996. The cut off date fixed by the respondents was struck down by this Court in CWP No.22422 of 2010 titled as ‘Anil Kumar and others. Vs. State of Punjab and others’ (Annexure P-3) and the judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the fact that the identical prayer and the pay scale on the basis of the pay anomaly was made in the writ petition filed in Anil Kumar’s case (supra). Further, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit claimed as they were having a lower pay scale of Rs.4400-7000.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been authoritatively settled by this Court in Anil Kumar’s case (supra)

which was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners in Anil Kumar’s case (supra) has sought the pay protection and removal of the pay anomaly created by insertion of the cut off date of 01.01.1996 and this Court has considered the controversy and observed as under:-

‘The dispute raised in the petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to protection of the pay they were drawing on 1.1.96 or not. Admittedly the petitioners were promoted as Junior Assistants on 1.1.96. On 19.5.1998 the Punjab Civil Service(Revised Pay) (First Amendment) Rules, 1998 were promulgated which were deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1.1.96. As per these rules the pay scale for the post of Clerks and Junior Assistants was revised and it was mentioned as follows:-

"The designation and the revised equivalent of the unrevised pay scale of officials working as Senior Clerk and Junior Assistant, as on 1st January, 1996, shall be protected as a measure personal to them."

The short grievance of the petitioners is that since they were in offi