IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CWP-9183-2022 Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Bhagwan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents for conducting necessary correction in the date of recruitment in the seniority list and taking appropriate action for removing the anomaly in equal pay as being given to the junior employees of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.2715 of 2022 titled as 'SI Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab and others', claiming the same relief, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2022 by passing the following order:- “The hearing of the case is being held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts. The petitioner prays for restoration of his pay which was reduced in the year 2010. The petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation in August, 2022. Undoubtedly, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition VINAY 2026.07.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-9183-2022 -2- No.15299 of 2015, while challenging the recovery notice on account of excess payment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid notice was withdrawn. The petitioner has sent a notice to the respondent which has been responded to in detail. The order reducing the pay was passed in the year 2010. Hence, in the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner is required to be relegated to the alternative remedy of Civil Court. This Bench does not find it appropriate to entertain the writ petition after such a long time. However, it is observed that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on the question of limitation to file a civil suit. Disposed of accordingly. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads no instructions. 4. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. 06.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.07 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment