HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioners, who are continuously working as Seed Certification Assistant from the last so many years in terms of the Government Instructions issued from time to time, as per policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were appointed as Seed Certification Assistants and they have been performing their duties with an unblemished record. He has further submitted that the services of similarly situated employees, including those junior to the petitioners i.e. Jaswinder Singh and others, have already been regularized by the respondents/authorities, in terms of the judgment dated 28.03.2017, passed by this Court in CWP-19776-2013, whereas the claim of the petitioners has been ignored. It is further argued that the respondents’ failure to regularize the services of the petitioners while granting such benefits to their juniors is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein a specific averment has been made in Para 3 that the case of the petitioners has not been rejected till date. He has further contended that the only ground taken for withholding the regularization of the petitioners was the pendency of CWP-4187-2017, titled as Anika Gupta and another vs State of Punjab, wherein The Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016, was challenged and the said writ petition has already been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.09.2024, in terms of the affidavit dated 11.11.2022, furnished by the State of Punjab to the effect that The Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016, has been repealed and the same has been forwarded to the Governor of Punjab, for his assent. Further, the impact of the judgment rendered in Anika Gupta’s case (supra) has been considered by this Court in CWP-12434-2022, titled as Akash Sharma vs State of Punjab, decided on 13.02.2026, wherein it has been held that The Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016, still holds the field and has the force of law. The judgment in Akash Sharma’s case (supra) has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-891-2026.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-17191-2020 and connected cases, titled as Gaganpreet Singh and others vs Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd and others, decided on 12.08.2025, wherein it has been categorically held that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of regularization, once they have regularized the services of juniors to the petitioners and the said judgment has already attained finality on 18.02.2026 before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-3586-2025 and connected cases, titled as Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd and another vs Gaganpreet Singh and others. As such, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.

5. Mr. Naresh Chand Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 as well and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

6. Learned counsel(s) for respondent No.2 have submitted that the recommendation has been made in favour of the petitioners for regularization and a proposal has been sent to respondent No.1. However, on a pointed query raised by this Court on this aspect, learned State counsel could not controvert the fact that the