135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.28320 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 HARGOBIND SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Parvesh K.Saini, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have erroneously denied the regular pay scale to the petitioners since the year 2016, when they had been recruited as Elementary Trained Teachers. He also submits that similar issue is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.14124-14125-2012 and SLP (Civil) bearing Diary No.44744-2023. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. 3. Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that the writ petitions preferred by other employees seeking the regular pay scale including CWP-17064-2017- Ajay Kumar Singla and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.10.2024. Thereafter, another writ petition bearing CWP-22232-2020 - Ankush Goyal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, was also disposed of in same terms as the judgment in SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.09.22 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP No.28320 of 2025 (O&M) -2- Ajay Kumar Singla’s case (supra). The State of Punjab had preferred SLP (Civil) bearing Diary No.44744-2023 against the judgment of this court in case of Ankush Goyal (supra) and the Supreme Court had issued notice and stayed the implementation of the impugned judgment. The matter is now listed for 31.10.2025. The order of the Supreme Court dated 08.12.2023 is reproduced hereunder:- “1. Delay condoned. 2. Issue notice and tag with SLP (Civil) Nos.14124- 14125/2012. 3. Till further orders, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.” 4. Learned State counsel submits that the State will abide by the outcome of the SLP in the Supreme Court and the case of the petitioners would also be considered in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 5. Heard. 6. In view of the statement of learned State counsel, the grievance of the petitioners appears to have been substantially redressed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 22.09.2025 sandeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.09.22 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.