Ambika Rani v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Ambika Rani ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:

Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay as well as allowances to the petitioner equal to/at par with other directly appointed PrePrimary Teachers as provided under the Punjab State Elementary Education (Pre-Primary School Teachers) Group 'C' Service Rules, 2020 (Annexure P-5) along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of regularization/regular appointmnet order of the petitioner dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) till realization since the petitioner despite being regularised under the Policy dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) is being paid a lesser pay scale. Further a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing the term and condition of the appointment order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) which hold the petitioner entitled to the salary of Rs.18,000/- per month which is lesser

than the salary being paid to other directly appointed regular PrePrimary Teachers; for quashing letter/instructions issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Punjab (not supplied/served upon the petitioner) which provides for granting lesser pay scale to the petitioner and similarly situated employees regularised pursuant to the police dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) in comparison to other directly appointed regular employees holding the same post and discharing the same duties and responsibilities.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of her grievances the petitioner has served legal notice dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) upon the respondents, however, no action has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for deciding legal notice dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) and submits that at this stage, petitioner would be satisfied, if the said legal notice is considered and decided by passing a speaking order in a timebound frame. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner in the present petition,

respondent No.4 is directed to consider and decide the grievance raised by the petitioner in the legal notice dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.

The petition stands disposed of.

06.04.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) R.S.

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No