IN T 113 Bhim Singh Jaswinder Punjab, Ch CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU order dated this Court in State of Pun COCP-6186-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR COCP No.6186 of Date of decision : Singh Yadav and others Versus inder Kaur, Secretary, Home Affa b, Chandigarh and others AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Supinder Singh Sohi, Advoc for the petitioners. Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG P Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Sr. Assista I GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition has be dated 21.5.2025 (Annexure P-1) passe ourt in CWP-14668-2025 titled as “Bhim of Punjab and others”, whereby the follo “1. The petitioners th Articles 226/227 of the seeking direction to resp of pay under Revised Pay 2. Learned counsel fo issue involved is no mor order dated 13.09.2024 No.15896 of 2023 titled others Vs. State of Punj settled the issue. 3. On being conf 13.09.2024 passed by petitions including C 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 186 of 2025 (O & M) sion :-14.01.2026 …..Petitioners Affairs and Justice, Govt. of …..Respondents NIDHI GUPTA Advocate AAG Punjab assisted by ssistant, O/o DGP, Punjab. has been filed alleging violation of passed by a co-ordinate Bench of Bhim Singh Yadav and others vs. e following order was passed :- s through instant petition under the Constitution of India are respondent to grant them fixation Pay Scale Rules 2009. sel for the petitioners submits that more res integra. This Court in 24 passed in Civil Writ Petition titled as 'Saurabh Sharma and Punjab and another has already confronted with order dated by this Court in a bunch of CWP-15896-2023, Saurabh VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.15 18.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from a bare had acknow Sharma (su same, the r whereby th Saurabh Sh dated 21.05 pay-scale to wilful disob controverted submits tha speaking or the case of t as elaborate fact, if the j the case of t scales. It is Dhir, DAG, COCP-6186-2025 (O & M) Sharma and others vs. S Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, P to controvert applicabili instant petition. 4. In the wake of or by this Court, instant pe and accordingly allowed reconsider claim of peti Court in Saurabh Sharm done within 6 months from Learned counsel for the petitio a bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it is cknowledged before the Writ Court th (supra) was applicable to the case o , the respondents have passed a speak by the case of the petitioners has bee h Sharma. It is contended that in te 21.05.2025, the respondents were under cale to the petitioners and, therefore, the l disobedience of the Court’s directions. Per contra, learned counsel overted the submissions advanced on b its that detailed and cogent reasons ing order dated 05.01.2026 explaining a se of the petitioners is distinguishable fr borated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 thereof. f the judgment in Saurabh Sharma (sup se of the petitioners, it would result in re . It is also submitted that the statement a DAG, Punjab before the Writ Court wa 2 vs. State of Punjab and another, G, Punjab expressed his inability ability of abovesaid judgment to f order dated 13.09.2024 passed t petition deserves to be allowed owed. Respondent is directed to petition as per judgment of this arma (supra). Let the needful be s from today.” petitioners inter alia submits that er, it is evident that the respondents urt that the judgment in Saurabh case of the petitioners. Despite the speaking order dated 05.01.2026, as been distinguished from that of t in terms of the Writ Court order under an obligation to grant revised re, the impugned action amounts to tions. unsel for the respondents has d on behalf of the petitioners and sons have been assigned in the ning as to how and in what manner able from that of Saurabh Sharma, ereof. It is further submitted that, in (supra) is mechanically applied to lt in reduction of their existing pay- ment allegedly made by Mr. Aman urt was not in consonance with the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.15 18.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document factual and impression. of the recor speaking or Court. The correctness limited sco proceedings examine the wilful or de January 14 Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep COCP-6186-2025 (O & M) l and legal position and appears to have ssion. After hearing learned counsel fo record, this Court finds that the respon ing order in purported compliance of the . The issue raised by the petitioners ctness or otherwise of the said speaking d scope of contempt jurisdiction. It is edings cannot be converted into appella ine the merits of the decision taken by the In view of the aforesaid facts a l or deliberate disobedience of the order d Accordingly, the present contem Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, sh 4, 2026 Asija speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No 3 o have been made under a mistaken sel for the parties and upon perusal espondents have passed a reasoned of the directions issued by the Writ tioners essentially pertains to the aking order, which falls outside the . It is well settled that contempt appellate or review proceedings to by the authorities. acts and circumstances, no case of er dated 21.05.2025 is made out. ontempt petition is dismissed. any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.15 18.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document