IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-3872-2021 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Baljit Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab. None for respondents No.3 to 5. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme as formulated, vide Policy Circular dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-1), including all other consequential benefits viz re-fixation of pay, arrears of benefits, along with interest from the date of accrual till its actual realization. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of judgment, which has been rendered by this Court in CWP No.16446 of 2010, titled as “Jaswinder Singh Bedi and others Vs. State of Punjab and others”, decided on 20.05.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the benefit of Jaswinder Singh Bedi's case (supra) has not been extended VINAY 2026.07.21 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-3872-2021 -2- to the petitioners on the ground that there is no order passed by the competent Court of law granting the petitioners the same benefit as granted to the petitioners in Jaswinder Singh Bedi's case (supra). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that keeping in view the law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in “Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana”, 2002(2) SCT 354, once the question of law has been settled, all the similarly situated employees are entitled for the benefit without forcing them to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that for the relief which has been sought in the present writ petition, petitioners have already approached the respondents by serving a legal notice dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-8), which is still pending consideration with the authorities and the petitioners will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to respondent No.1 to decide the same by passing an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law. 5. In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioners, respondent No.1 is directed to decide the legal notice dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-8), by passing a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case after the decision, it is found that the petitioners are entitled for any monetary benefit, the same shall also be released to them within a period of next three months. 6. Disposed of in the above terms. 21.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.21 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment