122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:15.10.2025 Sukhpal Singh and others …Petitioners vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate with Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioners minimum of the pay scale i.e. Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance in the Pay Band of Rs.10300- 34800+4200 Grade Pay along with DA (as revised from time to time), at par with their regular counterparts, instead of fixed consolidated salary from the dates of their initial contractual appointments and its consequential arrears along with interest @ 18 % per annum, in view of the law laid down by the SCT 641” as followed by this Court vide its common judgment dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-4), (duly upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-9) as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 19.09.2025 in SLP No.25633 of

2025 (Annexure P-12).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, 2016 SCT 641 as well as the judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed in SLP No.25633 of 2025 (Annexure P-12).

3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already submitted a legal notice dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-10) to the respondents and he shall be satisfied in case, appropriate directions are issued to the respondent No.4 to decide the legal notice dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-10) in a time bound manner.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and they have no serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage.

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

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.4 to decide the legal notice dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-10) in view of the law Singh, 2016 (1) SCT 641, as well as the judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed in SLP No.25633 of 2025 (Annexure P-12), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. Needless to observe that respondent No.4 shall pass a speaking and well reasoned order in the light of the above referred judgments as well as relevant rules/instructions and in case, it is found that the petitioners are entitled to any consequential benefits, the same may also be released to them forthwith along with a reasonable rate of interest.

9. The present petition is disposed of, accordingly.

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)

15.10.2025 JUDGE

hemlata