MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2025.08.26 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP-19944-2025 -2- Court rendered in CWP-9221-2014 titled as ‘Prabhjot Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and another’ (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel also submits that the directions may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the case of the petitioners in a time bound manner, in the light of the observations made by this Court in the above referred judgments. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of Court, Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, while Mr. APS Maan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has raised no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and assured this Court that the claim of the petitioners shall be considered in the light of the above-said judgments passed by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file minutely. 7. There is no dispute that the desired benefit has been given to similarly situated employees, who were the petitioners in Jeewan Jyoti’s case (supra) and in Prabhjot Singh’s case (supra), the petitioners will also be granted the said benefit, if found entitled to. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in the judgments (Annexures P-5 & P-9) passed by this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) 25.08.2025 JUDGE mks Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO Whether Reportable: YES / NO MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2025.08.26 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh