IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:24.12.2025 Pronounced on: 12.01.2026 Uploaded on: 12.01.2026 Sh. Tilak Raj and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by: - Mr. Baldev Singh Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give minimum regular pay scale, dearness allowance and grade pay to the petitioners at par with similarly situated co-employees, according to the principles/law laid down in CWP-19238 of 2013 – Amrish Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and others decided on 26.02.2024, which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-2032 of 2024 – State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram and others decided on 16.05.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have worked as Baildars on daily wage basis with the respondent-department for more than 20 years and all the petitioners have been relieved from service at the age of 58 years in the years 2016, 2017 and 2019. Learned counsel contended that petitioners have worked for more than 20 years but they have not been given the benefits of service rendered by them according to the principles/law laid down by this Court in Amrish Sharma’s case (supra), which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarwan Ram’s case (supra). He further submits that petitioners have sent a legal notice- cum-representation/demand notice dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) for regularization of their services and for grant of all consequential benefits at par with similarly situated co-employees, but no action has been taken thereon till date. He further submits that action of the respondents in not granting service benefits to the petitioners is illegal and against the principles of natural justice, therefore, present writ petition is liable to be allowed.

3. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on receipt of advance copy of the paperbook, submitted that the claim raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is highly belated and is not maintainable. He further submitted that benefit of Amrish Sharma’s case cannot be given to the petitioners as in that case petitioners, who were in service, sought regularization and minimum of the pay scale and the present petitioners are seeking grant of minimum regular pay scales at par with their co-employees, after superannuation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. As per their own case, petitioners worked as daily wage workers with the respondent-department continuously for more than 20 years and were relieved from service in the years 2016, 2017 and 2019. Now, after 5-9 years, they have approached this Court for grant of minimum regular pay scale, which is not tenable in the eyes of law after a huge delay as the claim of grant of minimum wages cannot be raised at this point of time when the petitioners are no longer in service. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in H.S. Gill vs Union of India and others, 2016(2) SCT 477, has held that an employee cannot claim the revised pay scale after retirement once he has been receiving the pay scale granted by the employer for the last 09 years. The relevant portion from the said judgment, reads as under:-

“14. The petitioner is also not entitled to any relief on account of principle of delay and laches. He has been ₹

receiving the pay in the pay scale of 6500-10500 right from his transfer to CSIO, Chandigarh i.e. 2.7.2002. For the first time, he moved the representation on 29.8.2011, so, he kept mum for about 9 years. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and stale.”

7. In Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana and others, 2022 (3) SCT 346, a Division Bench of this Court while rejecting th