192. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Dr. Tarun Garg and others University Grants Commission and others CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. by filing the seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to petitioners fixed emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, in terms of Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018, from their respective dates of initial appointment, along with consequential arrears and i terms as granted by this Court Versus University Grants Commission and others (Annexure P IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dr. Tarun Garg and others Versus University Grants Commission and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners (through video conferencing). Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. ----- NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fixed emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, in terms of Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018, from their respective dates of initial appointment, along with consequential arrears and i terms as granted by this Court in CWP No.21780 Versus University Grants Commission and others (Annexure P-8). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18448-2026 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 .... Petitioners .... Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners (through video conferencing). Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix and pay the fixed emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, in terms of Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018, from their respective dates of initial appointment, along with consequential arrears and interest, on the same CWP No.21780-2022-Rajan Goyal Versus University Grants Commission and others, decided on 30.04.2026. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court of the Constitution of India fix and pay the fixed emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, in terms of Clause 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018, from their respective dates of initial nterest, on the same Rajan Goyal 2026. SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.05.29 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18448-2026 - 2 - 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are contractual Assistant Professors working in the Punjabi University, Patiala and are getting fixed salary, whereas as per Clause 13.0 of the 'University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018', (Annexure P-6), the petitioners are entitled for monthly gross salary equivalent to a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. He further submits that the said Clause has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-21780-2022 titled as 'Rajan Goyal Vs. University Grants Commission & others' decided on 30.04.2026 and similar claim raised by other Assistant Professors has been allowed and the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said judgment. He further submits that for claiming the said benefit, the petitioners have also submitted a representation dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents, which is still pending consideration. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied, if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said representation, by passing a speaking order, in a time bound manner. 3. Notice of motion restricts to respondents No.2 to 7 only. 4. Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, and Ms. Shazia K. Singh, Advocate, accepts SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.05.29 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18448-2026 - 3 - notice on behalf of respondents No.5 to 7. They have no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6 to consider and decide the representation dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-9), submitted by the petitioners expeditiously in the light of judgment in Rajan Goyal's case (supra), by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, preferably within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.05.29 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document