122+205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5307-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Kartar Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

CM-1889-CWP-2026 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record copies of the order dated 16.11.2025 and

17.12.2025 as Annexures P-33 and P-34.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for. Annexures P-33 and P-34 are ordered to be taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.

Main case The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the action of the respondents in not granting the petitioners’ salary in the minimum of the regular pay scale, as allowed to their counterparts working on regular basis, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others, decided on 26.10.2016, reported as 2016 (4) SCC 641 and Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and others reported as 2019 (1) SCT 46; and further for not considering and granting the benefit of regularization of their services, despite the fact that the petitioners have been continuously working from the years 2011–2013, having been appointed against vacant sanctioned posts through a proper selection process, the same being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unconstitutional and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, reported as 2025 (1) SLR 1 and in Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 decided on 31.01.2025, reported as 2025 INSC 144; with a further prayer to direct the respondents to consider and grant the benefit of regularization of their services on completion of 10 years of service, along with all consequential benefits, in terms of the aforesaid judgments.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners have been working as Computer Operators under respondent No.2 since the years 2011–2013 on the basis of their selection and appointment made by adopting a regular selection process. The selection process commenced with issuance of advertisement dated 05.01.2011, pursuant whereto the petitioners appeared in the written test conducted on 13.02.2011, the result whereof was declared on 19.02.2011. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared, and the candidates were called for counselling from 05.03.2011 to 06.03.2011, followed by publication of the final result on the website of the department, upon which the selected candidates, including the petitioners, were issued appointment letters. Some of the petitioners were also appointed in the year 2013 pursuant to advertisement dated 08.11.2012 following the same procedure. The petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Computer Operator and were appointed against vacant sanctioned posts.

3. Further the counsel submits that since their respective dates of appointment, the petitioners have been continuously discharging duties of a perennial nature, identical to those being performed by their regular counterparts working on the same post in the respondent-Corporation as well as in the Health and Family Welfare Department. The petitioners are performing the same duties, sharing the same responsibilities and workload, yet they are being denied salary in the minimum of the regular pay scale and the benefit of regularization. It is further submitted that the service record of the petitioners has remained unblemished, and there is no adverse re