IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-35975-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Gurmail Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate (through video conferencing)

with Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.

None for respondent No.2 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 mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-2) and the judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.12211 of 2021 titled as Hans Raj and others Vs. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and another decided on 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) and CWP No.30455 of 2025 titled as Jagtar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-4).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working with respondent No.2/Corporation for the last more than 20 years. Initially, the petitioners were employed on the posts of Drivers and Conductors by respondent No.2/Corporation through outsourcing and subsequently, vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-1), they were appointed on direct contract basis. Thereafter, in view of satisfactory work and conduct of the petitioners, their term was extended on year to year basis by respondent No.2/Corporation. Further, the State Government issued a policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-2) to regularize the services of work-charged/daily wager and other employees, who have completed three years of service. The petitioners again and again approached respondent No.2/Corporation to regularize their services in view of the policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-2), however, their case was not considered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Hans Raj’s case (supra) and Jagtar Singh’s case (supra) As such, a prayer is made to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

4. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, could not controvert the fact that the petitioners were appointed on the aforementioned posts on direct contract basis vide order dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) and they have rendered service for more than 20 years.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. It may be profitable to refer to the legal maxim boni judics est causas litium dirimere, which calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent Court has granted a certain relief to one set of employees, their similarly situated counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts by denying them an identical relief. Furthermore, under the principle of stare decisis, the decision of the competent Court ought to be honoured to promote predictability and consistency in the law.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in Hans Raj’s case (supra) and Jagtar Singh’s case (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

03.12.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No