221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6039 of 2021 Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Dr. Narinder Paul Singh …Petitioner Versus I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University Jalandhar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present :- Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Dev, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Anand, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Ms. Monica Chhibber, Senior Advocate with (through VC) Ms. Mehak Maini, Advocate Mr. Adeep Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent-University to grant him the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) Scale (Stage-6), i.e. ₹67,000–79,000, under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), in terms of the Notification dated 18.06.2010, issued by the Government of Punjab- respondent No.5, and the Notification dated 04.10.2010, issued by the Government of India SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.17 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.6039 of 2021 -2- (Annexure P-2) under Career Progression Scheme. 2. Upon notice, the respondent-University had filed its reply and during the pendency of this writ-petition, vide the order dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure P-23), the respondent-University had declined the relief claimed by the petitioner, holding that the petitioner was not eligible for the same, as he did not fulfill the prescribed conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 02.02.2024, which is placed on record, by way of replication as Annexure P-23, and submits that the petitioner was neither given opportunity of hearing before declining his claim nor any reasons was assigned as to how he does not fulfill the criteria laid down in the afore-said Notification/Scheme. 4. This Court has also perused the order dated 02.02.2024 (Annexure P-23). Though the same has not been specifically challenged, as it was passed during the pendency of this writ petition, however a perusal thereof, clearly reveals that it is wholly non-speaking order. Simultaneously, it does not reflect that the same has been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereby, rendering this order not legally sustainable. 5. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for representing respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the case of the petitioner can be reconsidered, and the competent authority would pass a reasoned order after giving opportunities of hearing to the petitioner, in case the permission to do so is granted by this Court. SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.17 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.6039 of 2021 -3- 6. In view of the fair stand, which is appreciable taken by learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a mandamus upon the respondent-University to reconsider the entire matter with regard to the relief sought in the present writ petition. However, the respondent-University shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 8. All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) 14.07.2026 JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.17 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment