CWP-31964 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (247) Sucha Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for 08.08.2008 (Annexure P has been wrongly done w.e.f issuance of a pay scale, from the date of his actual regularization i.e. 01.08.1996 grant the payment of arrears to the petitioner, after re 2. Court that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, and after revising the pay scale, the payment has been made to the petitioner. Copy of the pay order is annexed as Annexure R filed by the State. 3. payment has already been made to the petitioner. However, she submits that 31964-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Singh Versus Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for 08.08.2008 (Annexure P-6), to the extent, that regularization of the petitioner has been wrongly done w.e.f. 19.08.2008. Further, prayer is made for issuance of a mandamus, upon the respondents, to pay scale, from the date of his actual regularization i.e. 01.08.1996 payment of arrears to the petitioner, after re Learned counsel for the State, at the very outset, apprises this Court that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, and after revising the pay scale, the payment has been made to the petitioner. Copy of the pay order is annexed as Annexure R-1, filed by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly admits that the payment has already been made to the petitioner. However, she submits that 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-31964-2019 Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI , Advocate Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 6), to the extent, that regularization of the petitioner . 19.08.2008. Further, prayer is made for , upon the respondents, to grant the petitioner revised pay scale, from the date of his actual regularization i.e. 01.08.1996, and also payment of arrears to the petitioner, after revising the pay scales. Learned counsel for the State, at the very outset, apprises this Court that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, and after revising the pay scale, the payment has been made to the petitioner. Copy of 1, with the reply dated 11.05.2023, Learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly admits that the payment has already been made to the petitioner. However, she submits that of setting aside the order dated 6), to the extent, that regularization of the petitioner . 19.08.2008. Further, prayer is made for grant the petitioner revised , and also Learned counsel for the State, at the very outset, apprises this Court that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, and after revising the pay scale, the payment has been made to the petitioner. Copy of with the reply dated 11.05.2023, Learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly admits that the payment has already been made to the petitioner. However, she submits that MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.21 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-31964 the department concerned, is required to pay the interest, down by Full Bench of this Court in its judgment titled versus State of Punjab’ 1997 (3) SCT 468 4. for the parties concerned, and is of the considered opi is required to approach the authorities concerned, any, at the first instance. 5. concerned, within a period of six weeks, from the d copy of this order, petitioner, shall adjudicate the same the judgment (supra), within a period of four weeks, thereafter. 6. April 20, 202 Manpreet 31964-2019 the department concerned, is required to pay the interest, down by Full Bench of this Court in its judgment titled versus State of Punjab’ 1997 (3) SCT 468. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and is of the considered opi is required to approach the authorities concerned, any, at the first instance. In case, the petitioner files a representation with the authorities within a period of six weeks, from the d copy of this order, the latter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order, the judgment (supra), within a period of four weeks, thereafter. Consequently, the instant writ petition is 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 the department concerned, is required to pay the interest, by virtue of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in its judgment titled ‘A.S. Randhawa This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is required to approach the authorities concerned, for payment of interest, if files a representation with the authorities within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of certified the latter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the by passing a speaking order, in view of the judgment (supra), within a period of four weeks, thereafter. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No by virtue of law laid ‘A.S. Randhawa This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel nion that the petitioner for payment of interest, if files a representation with the authorities ate of receipt of certified the latter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the in view of MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.21 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment