Satinderpl Singh Gaba And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-24653-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Satinderpal Singh Gaba and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Mirpur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

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 respondents to grant the Statutory pay scale to the petitioners as per 2009 Rules (Annexure P-5) i.e. Rs.5910-20200 Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- (for Pump Operators) later on Grade Pay increased to 10300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- (for Clerks) vide letter dated 15.12.2011 and 22.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) from entry into service along with arrears at interest rate of 12% thereon (the petitioners demand 6th Pay-scale/Commission, of Punjab State Government) and to direct the respondents to take into account the statutory pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- (for Pump Operators) later on Grade Pay increased to 10300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- (for Clerks) vide letter dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) with Future Pay

Revisions. Another prayer has been made to direct the respondents to struck down the Instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-4) and release the benefit to the petitioners under the judgment passed in CWP No.15896 of 2023 titled as Dr. Saurabh Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and under the judgment in CWP No.17064 of 2017 titled as Ajay Kumar Singla and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, Notification dated 15.01.2015 quashed, which were allowed in favour of the petitioners.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present petition is no more res integra, having already been settled by this Court in CWP No.15896 of 2023 and other connected cases, titled as Saurabh Sharma and others vs State of Punjab and another, decided on 13.09.2024. She further submits that she would be satisfied if the representation dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.3 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

3.

Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, could not controvert the fact that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Saurabh Sharma's case (supra). He further submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.3 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation dated 07.01.2025 of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

4.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.3.

5.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 25.08.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No