IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

108 CWP-16138-2026 Date of Decision: 22.05.2026 Charan Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the speaking order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the representation of the petitioner for regularization of the services of petitioner w.e.f. 2002 has been rejected as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service Rules. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to regularize the services of petitioner from 2002 and also to grant the petitioner, pay scale as admissible to the similarly situated employees either from 2002 or from 01.07.2013 along with all consequential benefits and to grant the interest @ 12% per annum from 2002 till the realization of the payment in view of the statutory provisions of law and law laid down by this Court in catena of judgments.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation in the year 1993 as T. Mate on daily wage basis and was subsequently brought on work-charged establishment in the year 2015. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees, filed CWP-10494-2002 before this Court seeking regularization of their services and the said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure P-2). However, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected by the respondents vide office order dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of 8th pass (Middle Pass). Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP- 19058-2018 challenging the rejection of his claim for regularization from the date of his initial appointment. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the services of the petitioner came to be regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2013 vide order dated 01.04.2022 and consequently, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation followed by a legal notice dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-8). However, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel further submits that once the services of the petitioner stood regularized, denial of regularization from the date of initial appointment is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, especially when similarly situated employees have been granted the said benefit. It is further contended that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book as well as the pleadings on record with able assistance.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Corporation in the year 1993 and had initially sought regularization by filing CWP-10494-2002. However, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualification of 8th pass (Middle Pass) vide office order dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-19058-2018 challenging the rejection of his claim for regularization from the date of initial appointment. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents regularized the services of the petiti