Ritu Sharma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.04.2026 Ritu Sharma ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate (through V.C.) and Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1.

Instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the statutory pay scale to the petitioner as mandated in the Punjab Educational (Teaching Cadre) Group C Service Rules, 2018 viz. Rs.10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay from entry into service along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date amount became due till actual date of payment with further directions to the respondents to take into account the statutory pay scale of Rs.1030034800+ Rs.5000 Grade Pay with future pay revision by extending the benefit of judgments dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-16), passed by this Court in CWP-19204 of 2024 - Davinder Singh Khera and others v.

State of Punjab and others; dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-17), passed in CWP-15896 of 2023 - Saurabh Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and another and dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure P-23) passed in CWP-5026 of 2026 - Karamjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others and implemented vide order dated 06.03.2026 qua petitioners only, with all consequential benefits in terms of arrears of pay along with interest @ 12% from the date amount became due till actual date of payment.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of her grievances, petitioner has served legal notice dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P-22) upon the respondents, which is still pending consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for deciding legal notice dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P-22) and submits that at this stage, petitioner would be satisfied, if the said legal notice is considered and disposed of by passing a speaking order in a time-bound frame.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, 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.5 is directed to consider and decide the claim made by the petitioner in the legal notice dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P-22) in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled, necessary benefits be released within a period of one month thereafter.

7.

The petition stands disposed of.

27.04.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) R.S.

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No