IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.6186 of 2025 (O & M)

Date of decision :-14.01.2026 Bhim Singh Yadav and others …..Petitioners Versus Jaswinder Kaur, Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Supinder Singh Sohi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Punjab assisted by Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Sr. Assistant, O/o DGP, Punjab.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 21.5.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-14668-2025 titled as “Bhim Singh Yadav and others vs.

State of Punjab and others”, whereby the following order was passed :-

“1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent to grant them fixation of pay under Revised Pay Scale Rules 2009.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issue involved is no more res integra. This Court in order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.15896 of 2023 titled as 'Saurabh Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab and another has already settled the issue.

3. On being confronted with order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Court in a bunch of petitions including CWP-15896-2023, Saurabh Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and another, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab expressed his inability to controvert applicability of abovesaid judgment to instant petition.

4. In the wake of order dated 13.09.2024 passed by this Court, instant petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. Respondent is directed to reconsider claim of petition as per judgment of this Court in Saurabh Sharma (supra). Let the needful be done within 6 months from today.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the respondents had acknowledged before the Writ Court that the judgment in Saurabh Sharma (supra) was applicable to the case of the petitioners. Despite the same, the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 05.01.2026, whereby the case of the petitioners has been distinguished from that of Saurabh Sharma. It is contended that in terms of the Writ Court order dated 21.05.2025, the respondents were under an obligation to grant revised pay-scale to the petitioners and, therefore, the impugned action amounts to wilful disobedience of the Court’s directions.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that detailed and cogent reasons have been assigned in the speaking order dated 05.01.2026 explaining as to how and in what manner the case of the petitioners is distinguishable from that of Saurabh Sharma as elaborated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 thereof. It is further submitted that, in fact, if the judgment in Saurabh Sharma (supra) is mechanically applied to the case of the petitioners, it would result in reduction of their existing pay- scales. It is also submitted that the statement allegedly made by Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab before the Writ Court was not in consonance with the factual and legal position and appears to have been made under a mistaken impression.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the respondents have passed a reasoned speaking order in purported compliance of the directions issued by the Writ Court. The issue raised by the petitioners essentially pertains to the correctness or otherwise of the said speaking order, which falls outside the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction. It is well settled that contempt proceedings cannot be converted into appellate or review proceedings to examine the merits of the decision taken by the authorities.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case of wilful or deliberate disobedience of the