129. IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT JASPREET KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J 1. Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and extend the benefit of judgment passed by this Court in others Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.11.2024 (Annexure P Court and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. scale as per the Service Rules applicabl grant her the arrears of salary along with interest @ 18% from the date the amount became due till the date of payment. 2. situated employees, who were appoin same process of selection and same qualifications posted in the same IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: 13.07.2026 JASPREET KAUR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab ----- SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL) The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and extend the benefit of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.20035 of 2024 others Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-15), which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. scale as per the Service Rules applicable to the post of the petitioner and to grant her the arrears of salary along with interest @ 18% from the date the amount became due till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated employees, who were appointed on the same posts, after adopting same process of selection and same qualifications posted in the same IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20874-2026 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 …. PETITIONER …. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Punjab. writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and extend the benefit of judgment CWP No.20035 of 2024-Sukhpreet Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.11.2024 , which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petitioner is seeking the pay e to the post of the petitioner and to grant her the arrears of salary along with interest @ 18% from the date the amount became due till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly ted on the same posts, after adopting same process of selection and same qualifications posted in the same writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and extend the benefit of judgment ngh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.11.2024 , which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Petitioner is seeking the pay e to the post of the petitioner and to grant her the arrears of salary along with interest @ 18% from the date the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly ted on the same posts, after adopting SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.14 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20874-2026 - 2 - department for the post of MLT-II have been granted regular pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + Rs.3600 Grade Pay w.e.f. the date of joining service, vide Annexure P-15, dated 27.11.2024. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Since the State/respondents were served with an advance copy of the petition, Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance and submits that in case, it is found that the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in the case of Sukhpreet Singh and others (supra), the relief claimed by the petitioner herein will be extended to her. In case, there is any difference between the petitioner herein and the petitioners in the case of Sukhpreet Singh and others (supra), appropriate speaking order will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order giving due valid reasons for not accepting the claim of the petitioner, which will be duly conveyed to her. 5. Keeping in view the statement of learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any further, at this stage. 6. Ordered accordingly. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 13.07.2026 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.07.14 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document