CWP-13951 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 235(2 cases) 1. Sharma Ji Goyat and others State of Haryana and others 2. Jai Parkash State of Haryana CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of the above as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP 2. The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus 1 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH cases) Date of Decision: Sharma Ji Goyat and others VERSUS State of Haryana and others VERSUS State of Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-13951-2021. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 in CWP-24337-2022. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispose of the above as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CWP-24337-2022. The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the mandamus directing the respondents to grant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 17, 2025 CWP-13951-2021 .....Petitioners VERSUS ..Respondents CWP-24337-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS ..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the petitioner(s). AG, Haryana. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in Pandit, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 in This order of mine shall dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the respondents to grant the promotion, pay September 17, 2025 .....Petitioners ..Respondents .....Petitioner ..Respondents mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the , pay PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 fixation and pensionary benefits as Commercial Assistant, Circle Assistant, Head Clerk and Circle Superintendent to petitioner, after fixing the seniority list at par with the juniors who passed the departmental exam after the petitioner in view of 1988, decided on 10.09.1992 titled as and others in RSA No.494 of 2014, decided on 06.05.2014 titled as Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Vs direct the respondents to release the arrears of pay along with interest @ 18%. CONTENTIONS 3. petitioner joined the services of Haryana State Electricity Board and retired on 31.01.2007 after service of more than three decades. The petitioner is claiming promotion, pay fixation and pensionary benefits at par with his junior namely Sh coordinate Bench of this Court in Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.01.2019 P-12). Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed relianc judgment of this Court in Haryana State Electricity Board and others, (Annexure P Division Clerks (UDC) be revised and dir failed to qualify departmental examination within two years of five 2 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 fixation and pensionary benefits as Commercial Assistant, Circle Assistant, Head Clerk and Circle Superintendent to petitioner, after fixing the seniority list at par with the juniors who passed the departmental exam after the petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.9342 of 1988, decided on 10.09.1992 titled as Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana (Annexure P-1) which judgment has been followed subsequently in RSA No.494 of 2014, decided on 06.05.2014 titled as Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Vs direct the respondents to release the arrears of pay along with interest @ CONTENTIONS Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) petitioner joined the services of Haryana State Electricity Board and retired on 31.01.2007 after service of more than three decades. The petitioner is claiming promotion, pay fixation and pensionary benefits at par with his junior namely Sh. Maha Singh, in terms of the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-21603 State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.01.2019 12). Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed relianc judgment of this Court in CWP-9342-1988, Haryana State Electricity Board and others, (Annexure P-1), wherein it has been held that seniority list of Upper Division Clerks (UDC) be revised and dir failed to qualify departmental examination within two years of five fixation and pensionary benefits as Commercial Assistant, Circle Assistant, Head Clerk and Circle Superintendent to petitioner, after fixing the seniority list at par with the juniors who passed the departmental exam after the the order passed by this Court in CWP No.9342 of Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1) which judgment has been followed subsequently in RSA No.494 of 2014, decided on 06.05.2014 titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others Vs. Madhu Bala and others and direct the respondents to release the arrears of pay along with interest @ Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that petitioner joined the services of Haryana State Electricity Board and retired on 31.01.2007 after service of more than three decades. The petitioner is claiming promotion, pay fixation and pensionary benefits at par with his . Maha Singh, in terms of the judgment passed by 21603-2016, titled as Mithan Lal State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.01.2019 (Annexure 12). Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the 1988, titled as Jagdish Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, decided on 10.09.1992 wherein it has been held that seniority list of Upper Division Clerks (UDC) be revised and directed that recruited UDCs, who failed to qualify departmental examination within two years of five fixation and pensionary benefits as Commercial Assistant, Circle Assistant, Head Clerk and Circle Superintendent to petitioner, after fixing the seniority list at par with the juniors who passed the departmental exam after the the order passed by this Court in CWP No.9342 of Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1) which judgment has been followed subsequently n Haryana and direct the respondents to release the arrears of pay along with interest @ contends that petitioner joined the services of Haryana State Electricity Board and retired on 31.01.2007 after service of more than three decades. The petitioner is claiming promotion, pay fixation and pensionary benefits at par with his . Maha Singh, in terms of the judgment passed by Mithan Lal (Annexure e upon the Vs. decided on 10.09.1992 wherein it has been held that seniority list of Upper ected that recruited UDCs, who failed to qualify departmental examination within two years of five PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 successive chances, should be placed below the UDCs who had already qualified the examination for the promotion wrote certain let of UDCs. Further, Sh. Maha Singh, who was similarly situated to the petitioner was working in DHBVNL and had filed civil suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, for granting him b arrears of pay at par with junior Sh.Ram Nath Singh. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated 14.05.2012. Pursuant thereto, the First Appeal filed against the judgment dated 14.05.2012 by respondent(s) stands dismissed vide ju second appeal was also filed against the judgment dated 26.07.2013 (supra) which was also dismissed by this Court on 06.05.2014 (Annexure P Thereafter the Special Leave Petition was also filed by respo the judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2014 before the Apex Court, which also stands dismissed (Annexure P to the same relief which was granted to Sh. Maha Singh (supra), who is similarly situated. Furt has attained finality in terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in others, decided on 24.02.1998 departmental examination prior to the benefits with regard to pay fixation and promotion. As such, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. 3 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 successive chances, should be placed below the UDCs who had already qualified the examination for the promotion wrote certain letters on 24.10.2006 and 23.02.2007 for revising the seniority of UDCs. Further, Sh. Maha Singh, who was similarly situated to the petitioner was working in DHBVNL and had filed civil suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, for granting him b arrears of pay at par with junior Sh.Ram Nath Singh. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated 14.05.2012. Pursuant thereto, the First Appeal filed against the judgment dated 14.05.2012 by respondent(s) stands dismissed vide judgment dated 26.07.2013(Annexure P second appeal was also filed against the judgment dated 26.07.2013 (supra) which was also dismissed by this Court on 06.05.2014 (Annexure P Thereafter the Special Leave Petition was also filed by respo the judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2014 before the Apex Court, which also stands dismissed (Annexure P-5). As such, petitioner is entitled to the same relief which was granted to Sh. Maha Singh (supra), who is similarly situated. Further the issue with regard to revised seniority list, it has attained finality in terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA-192-1993, titled Jagdish Singh Versus H.P.S.E.B and others, decided on 24.02.1998. Moreover, the petitioner has passed the departmental examination prior to his juniors and they have been granted all the benefits with regard to pay fixation and promotion. As such, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. successive chances, should be placed below the UDCs who had already qualified the examination for the promotion. Thereafter, the respondent ters on 24.10.2006 and 23.02.2007 for revising the seniority of UDCs. Further, Sh. Maha Singh, who was similarly situated to the petitioner was working in DHBVNL and had filed civil suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, for granting him benefit of seniority and arrears of pay at par with junior Sh.Ram Nath Singh. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated 14.05.2012. Pursuant thereto, the First Appeal filed against the judgment dated 14.05.2012 by respondent(s) stands dgment dated 26.07.2013(Annexure P-3). The regular second appeal was also filed against the judgment dated 26.07.2013 (supra) which was also dismissed by this Court on 06.05.2014 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter the Special Leave Petition was also filed by respondent against the judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2014 before the Apex Court, 5). As such, petitioner is entitled to the same relief which was granted to Sh. Maha Singh (supra), who is her the issue with regard to revised seniority list, it has attained finality in terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of 1993, titled Jagdish Singh Versus H.P.S.E.B and Moreover, the petitioner has passed the juniors and they have been granted all the benefits with regard to pay fixation and promotion. As such, the successive chances, should be placed below the UDCs who had already Thereafter, the respondent ters on 24.10.2006 and 23.02.2007 for revising the seniority of UDCs. Further, Sh. Maha Singh, who was similarly situated to the petitioner was working in DHBVNL and had filed civil suit before the Civil enefit of seniority and arrears of pay at par with junior Sh.Ram Nath Singh. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated 14.05.2012. Pursuant thereto, the First Appeal filed against the judgment dated 14.05.2012 by respondent(s) stands 3). The regular second appeal was also filed against the judgment dated 26.07.2013 (supra) 4). ndent against the judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2014 before the Apex Court, 5). As such, petitioner is entitled to the same relief which was granted to Sh. Maha Singh (supra), who is her the issue with regard to revised seniority list, it has attained finality in terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of 1993, titled Jagdish Singh Versus H.P.S.E.B and Moreover, the petitioner has passed the juniors and they have been granted all the benefits with regard to pay fixation and promotion. As such, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 4. written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP Copy thereof be supplied to the opposite counsel and the same is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. 5. claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and latches. The petitioner is an indolent, fence sitter and his claim cannot be considered at this stage and similarly situated counterparts to him have raised their claims well wi the petitioner crystallized in the year 2007 when he retired from the service. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS 6. respondent(s) and have gone through the case file wi 7. petitioner(s), ‘Sh. Maha Singh’ had filed the suit well within time and the suit was decreed on 14.05.2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon. Further, and one ‘Mithan Lal Gupta’ had filed writ petition in the year 2016, whereas, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2022 and had served the legal notice only on 25.06.2022. Powers Constitution do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. Fence their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. 4 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP Copy thereof be supplied to the opposite counsel and the same is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. Per contra learned counsel for claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and latches. The petitioner is an indolent, fence sitter and his claim cannot be considered at this stage and similarly situated counterparts to him have raised their claims well wi the petitioner crystallized in the year 2007 when he retired from the service. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent(s) and have gone through the case file wi Perusal of the record shows that counterparts of the petitioner(s), ‘Sh. Maha Singh’ had filed the suit well within time and the suit was decreed on 14.05.2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon. Further, ‘Jagdish Singh’ has filed the writ petition in the year 1988 and one ‘Mithan Lal Gupta’ had filed writ petition in the year 2016, whereas, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2022 and had served the legal notice only on 25.06.2022. Powers Constitution do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated ike with mere opportunists. espondents No.2 to 4-UHBVN has filed written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-24337-2022. Copy thereof be supplied to the opposite counsel and the same is taken on learned counsel for the respondent(s) submits that the claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and latches. The petitioner is an indolent, fence sitter and his claim cannot be considered at this stage and similarly situated counterparts to him have raised their claims well within time, whereas, the right of the petitioner crystallized in the year 2007 when he retired from the service. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent(s) and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. Perusal of the record shows that counterparts of the petitioner(s), ‘Sh. Maha Singh’ had filed the suit well within time and the suit was decreed on 14.05.2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), ‘Jagdish Singh’ has filed the writ petition in the year 1988 and one ‘Mithan Lal Gupta’ had filed writ petition in the year 2016, whereas, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2022 and had served the legal notice only on 25.06.2022. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated UHBVN has filed 2022. Copy thereof be supplied to the opposite counsel and the same is taken on the respondent(s) submits that the claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and latches. The petitioner is an indolent, fence sitter and his claim cannot be considered at this stage and similarly situated thin time, whereas, the right of I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as th their able assistance. Perusal of the record shows that counterparts of the petitioner(s), ‘Sh. Maha Singh’ had filed the suit well within time and the suit was decreed on 14.05.2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), ‘Jagdish Singh’ has filed the writ petition in the year 1988 and one ‘Mithan Lal Gupta’ had filed writ petition in the year 2016, whereas, the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2022 and had under Article 226 of the Constitution do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 8. Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented them from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225 5 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, ts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented them from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held: “16. Whilst it is true that limitation does proceedings under Articles 32 India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists multiple occasions, it has been restate limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this “17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that writ petitioner approaches the delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, ts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented them from approaching this Court for such a long time. the judgment rendered by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal , wherein, the following was held: Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an le lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who and allowed illegalities to fester. sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. , this Court observed thus: It is also well settled principle of law that "delay It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who he judgment.”” (emphasis added) It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, ts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented them from approaching this Court for such a long time. hree- Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal not strictly apply to of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who and allowed illegalities to fester. sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens . On d that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay where the after a long reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who (emphasis added) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 9. 2024 AIR SC 2717, that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reas dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts. 10. (2013) 12 SCC 179 and referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been dec decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India such government employees as those who are alert and vigi 11. appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the present petitions stand dismissed, so also the pending 6 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 Further, in Mrinmoy Maity V 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reas dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ In State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been dec decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India such government employees as it is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the present petitions stand dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ . Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, , while considering the issue regarding delay and laches earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not come to the aid of it is well settled that law leans in favour of In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the present petitions stand miscellaneous application(s), if any. s. Chhanda Koley and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was on enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ . Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, , while considering the issue regarding delay and laches Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived ided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to will not come to the aid of it is well settled that law leans in favour of In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the present petitions stand PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 12. cases. September P.C 7 13951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected September 17, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document