IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CWP-492-2019 Date of decision : 13.07.2026 Harjeet Singh ….Petitioner V/S Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.V.S. Lehal, Advocate for the respondents. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents to the extent in incorporate the condition of paying salary in the initial pay i.e. fixed salary of Rs.4,819/- during the first 2 years of probation in the appointment letter (Annexure P-6) and also quash the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner from the date of submission of application/recommendation. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner from the date of submission of application/recommendation and also to release the salary to the petitioner in a regular pay scale along with other benefits as admissible to the post of Chowkidar as paid to the other similar employees along with all consequential benefits and interest @ 18% per annum. VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.13 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-492-2019 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in CWP No.6391 of 2016 titled as ‘Dr. Vishavdeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’ and other connected case decided on 26.10.2018 (Annexure P-10), wherein similar claim raised by the similarly situated employees has been accepted, which is under challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).11476 of 2020 titled as ‘The State of Punjab and others Vs. Dr. Vishavdeep Singh and others’, wherein, while issuing notice in the special leave petitions as well as on the applications for condonation of delay, it has further been ordered that contempt petitions, if any, shall not be proceeded with. 3. Since the matter is covered by the abovesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the same is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms. However, the same shall be implemented after and subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid SLP. 13.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.13 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document