IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-36590-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.12.2025 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate with Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to convert the work and duties of the petitioner from Peon to Clerical line as he has been reinstated in service with continuity of service and 50% back wages vide award dated 18.02.2020, which has attained finality in CWP-10464-2020 as well as in LPA-2229-2024 and further to regularize the services of the petitioner under Government Instructions/Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-7) and thereafter, promote him from the date the persons junior to him have been promoted.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was engaged as a Clerk in the year 1998 and was performing clerical duties. His services were terminated on 31.08.2012 without notice, charge sheet, inquiry or retrenchment compensation. The Industrial Tribunal, vide its Award dated 18.02.2020, held the termination of the petitioner as illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The respondents’ subsequently challenged the Award dated 18.02.2020, however, the same were dismissed by this Court in CWP No.10464 of 2020 on 21.05.2024 and in LPA No.2229 of 2024 on 17.09.2024, confirming the legality of the reinstatement. Despite being reinstated on 14.10.2024, the petitioner was assigned peon duties in place of his previous clerical responsibilities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, despite filing representations and the legal notice dated 24.09.2024, the respondents have failed to regularize his services or restore his rightful duties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the instant writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation along with all the supporting documents and relevant judgments applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, before respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today.

4. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection in case the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to file a comprehensive representation along with all supporting documents and relevant judicial precedents before respondent No.2.

5. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation along with all the supporting documents and relevant judgments applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, before respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of the said representation. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

08.12.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No