IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Meenakshi and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Bikramjit S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure P-10) vide which the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the policies dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) and 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) has been rejected by the respondents. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and to grant all consequential and actual benefits w.e.f. 2011 and for directing the respondents to grant arrears of pay and salary as admissible including fixation of pay to the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as Staff Nurses since 2011. The said appointment was made after following the due procedure of law. Their claim for regularization has wrongly been rejected vide impugned order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure P-10). He further submits that complying with the directions issued in CWP-19307 of 2020 – Darshan Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and another decided on 21.05.2025 similarly situated persons like the petitioners, who were also appointed along with the petitioners, have been regularized by the respondents vide order dated 16.11.2025 (Annexure P-14). Thereafter, various other similarly situated persons have also been regularized on completion of three years of service vide order dated 16.11.2025 (Annexure P-15) following the dictum of this Court in CWP-11499 of 2021 – Rakhal and others v. State of Punjab and others decided on 09.01.2025 and CWP-11427 of 2015 – Sukhjad Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others decided on 19.12.2018, which has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the petitioners shall serve justice demand notice to the respondents and the same may be considered and disposed of in a time-bound manner.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that if any such justice demand notice is served upon by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in the light of judgments in Darshan Kumar (supra)

and Rakhal (supra) and by considering the orders dated 16.11.2025 (Annexures P-14 and P-15), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

(NAMIT KUMAR)

03.12.2025 JUDGE R.S.