Rajinder Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:25.05.2026 112 (03 cases) CWP-13850-2026 Harkesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab And Another ....Respondents CWP-13861-2026 Jasveer Singh And Others .....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab And Another ....Respondents CWP-13869-2026 Rajinder Singh And Others .....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab And Another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the cases.

Ms. Pratibha Bali, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel with

Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate and Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-13850-2026.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-13861-2026.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP-13869-2026.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP13850-2026. 2.

The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, who have been serving the respondent-Corporation on various posts for the last about 08-10 years to the satisfaction of the authorities, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal No.14831 of 2024 decided on 20.12.2024 and by this Court in CWP-5684-2026 titled as Daljeet Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, as well as the availability of regular sanctioned posts. Further, directions are sought for grant of all consequential benefits including regular

pay scale, arrears of pay and allowances, increments, seniority and promotional benefits from the date of regularization. The petitioners also seek parity in pay scale and other service benefits with similarly situated regular employees till regularization of their services in terms of the judgment rendered in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, 2016 (4) SCT 641. A further prayer has also been made for restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners or taking any arbitrary or coercive action against them during the pendency of the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were initially appointed through an outsourcing agency on 28.12.2016 on various posts under the respondent-Corporation and have been continuously serving for the last about 08-10 years against regular sanctioned posts. Their contractual engagement has been extended from time to time and throughout their service tenure, their work and conduct have remained satisfactory. It is further contended that the petitioners are performing duties of the same nature and responsibility as those discharged by regular employees, however, they are being denied regular pay scale and other service benefits. The petitioners submitted various representations seeking regularization of their services and grant of consequential benefits by placing reliance upon the judgments rendered in Jaggo v. Union of India (supra), Hans Raj & Others v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, CWP-12211-2021, decided on 03.09.2025 and State of Punjab v. Jagjit

Singh (supra), wherein contractual/temporary employees were held entitled to regularization and equal pay benefits.

3.1.

It is further submitted that despite service of legal notice dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), no action has been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that similarly situated employees had approached this Court by way of CWP Nos. 5684 of 2026, 5766 of 2026 and 8371 of 2026, which were allowed vide judgment dated 22.04.2026, and therefore, denial of similar relief to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory.

3.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), of the petitioners is decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

4.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2 in CWP-13869-2026, which is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place. 5.

Learned counsels for the respondents submitted that they have no objection in the event this Court issues a direction to Managing Director of respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice of the petitioners empathetically in a time-bound manner, in the light of the judgments passed by the this Court in Daljeet Singh (supra).

6.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, all the three petitions are disposed of and the respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the legal notice dated 10.04.2026, Annexure P-1, and consider the claim of the petitioners, by passing a speaking order in a timebound manner, in the light of the judgment referred to here-in-above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in case, the petitioner's case is covered, the petitioners would be extended the same benefit as has been extended by this Court to the petitioner in Daljeet Singh (supra). Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners.

7.

Needless to observe that, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to them forthwith by the respondent No.2/competent authority, in accordance with law. 8.

In case, the Managing Director of respondent No.2 deviates from the directions issued by this Court either in Daljeet Singh (supra) or in this case the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to initiate contempt proceedings.

9.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

10.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 25.05.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No