LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 (111+ 228/2) LPA-2933-2025(O&M) U.T. Chandigarh and Another ...Appellants Versus Dildeep Singh and Others ...Respondents (228/1) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) Malti Sharma and Others ...Appellant Versus Union Territory and Others ...Respondents (228/3) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Others ...Appellants Versus Sourav Gautam and Others ...Respondents (228/4) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) U.T. Chandigarh and Another ...Appellants Versus Sourav Gautam and Others ...Respondents SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 2 | P a g e (228/5) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) U.T. Chandigarh and Another ...Appellants Versus Narinder Kumar and Others ...Respondents (228/6) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) Municipal Council Chandigarh and Others ...Appellants Versus Narinder Kumar and Others ...Respondents (228/7) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) Municipal Council Chandigarh and Others ...Appellants Versus Dildeep Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priyanka Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA-649-2021. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek K. Premi, Advocate, and Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA-2933-2025 & LPA-3418-2025 SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 3 | P a g e Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA-3123-2025, LPA-3450-2025 and LPA-3806-2025 and for the respondent-MC, Chandigarh in LPA-2933-2025, LPA-3418-2025 and LPA-3618-2025. Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Shazia K. Singh, Advocate, for the respondents in LPA-3123-2025. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in LPA-649-2021. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shreya Kaushik, Advocate, and for private respondents in LPA-2933-2025 & LPA-3450-2025. Mr. Akash Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Sumeet Jain, Additional Standing Counsel, for respondent-UT Chandigarh. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. By this common order, seven letters patent appeals, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being decided as these appeals involve the same question of law on similar facts. 2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2025 in CWP No.22747 of 2017 whereby the direction has been given for considering the claim of the private respondent-employees for regularization of their services as the private respondents were engaged as Junior Engineers (Public health) during the year 2007-2010, keeping in view the fact that they have performed the duties for more than one decade and such continuance have given them right for SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 4 | P a g e regularization of their services in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, as well as the judgments dated 13.09.2018 passed in Sunil Kumar & Others v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No.3730 of 2017, and dated 25.04.2024 passed in Bipin Sher Singh v. Union of India and Others, CWP No.9322 of 2024. 3. 3. At the outset, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents submits that the same issue seeking regularization came up for consideration before this Court where, the employees had approached this Court for regularization their services, which has already been allowed, based upon the settled principles of law. Therefore, the judgment given by the learned Single Judge, impugned by the appellant is covered by the said decision given in CWP No.2494 of 2018 decided on 29.04.2026 titled as ‘Harjit Singh and Others versus Union of India and Others. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that though, the said proposition of law has been considered and answered against the appellant, U.T. and M.C. Chandigarh but, there are certain additional points which needs to be considered. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submits that, a direction has been given that the private respondent employees will be deemed to be regularized upon expiry of the time frame given i.e. within six weeks from the date of the impugned judgment for consideration of their claim but, such direction could not have been given by the learned Single SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 5 | P a g e Judge unless and until, the employees are found entitled/eligible for regularization after consideration of their claim in all aspects. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that there is no policy of Group B for regularization of their services hence, the private respondents who are working on Group B post could not have been regularized. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant further submits that the last argument is that after the year 2022, the Central Government rules have been made applicable upon the employees of the U.T. Chandigarh and therefore, till the Government of India grant, the approval of the regularization. The same could not have been done and in the present case, the Government of India is not a party hence, the direction given cannot be implemented. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent(s) submits that the said issues have already been dealt with while deciding Harjeet Singh’s case (supra) and therefore, raising the same argument for consideration so as to seek a different order, may kindly be rejected. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents further submits that even if there is no policy for regularization, but the claim is acquired as per the settled principles of law, the appellants are liable to be followed the said law and the directions so given based upon such settled principles of law by the learned Single Judge is liable to be upheld. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that qua the argument that the services of the Junior Engineers cannot be regularized is incorrect for two reasons, that when the Junior Engineers were initially recruited in the SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 6 | P a g e year 2007-2010, they were recruited on a Group C posts under Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, though, keeping in view the pay scale granted, the same are now to be treated in Group B. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents further submits that even in the case of the Junior Engineer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.657 of 2026 decided on 30.01.2026 titled as ‘Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others’, has given such direction to regularize the services of Junior Engineers and therefore, even in the absence of any such policy, the services of the Junior Engineer are to be considered for regularization as per the settled principles of law in Bhola Nath’s case (supra) and Harjeet Singh’s case (supra). 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 10. It may be noticed that the issue qua the regularization of the services has been settled recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by giving due interpretation to the judgment of the Constitution Bench Judgment in ‘State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi & Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1’. The said judgment has been interpreted in Jaggo’ s case (supra). 11. Further, the said issue qua the Chandigarh Administration has been considered in light of the above mentioned judgment while passing order in Harjit Singh’s case (supra) and such directions for regularization have already been given to the Chandigarh Administration, which fact has gone unrebutted at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. Once, based upon the settled principles of law notice hereinbefore, the direction have already been given to consider the claim of all eligibles employees, SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 7 | P a g e who are covered by the settled principles of law as noticed in Harjit Singh’s case (supra), the said direction needs to be implemented qua the respondents herein as well. 12. The argument of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that respondent cannot be deemed regularized and needs to be accepted. Only direction which could have been given by the Court to consider the claim of the eligible employees for regularization and then pass appropriate order but keeping in mind the settled principles of law. 13. This consideration is to be based upon the work and conduct of such employees so that, any employee whose work and conduct is not satisfactory, cannot get deemed regularization. Hence, the appellant will consider and pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondent employees, whose cases are covered by the judgment mentioned in hereinbefore i.e. Harjit Singh’s case (supra) as well as Bhola Nath’s case (supra), coupled with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo’s case (supra), Sunil Kumar’s case (supra) and Dharam Singh’s case (supra), the appropriate order qua their claim for regularization their services will be passed. In case the claim arises by the settled principles of law, benefit be extended qua regularization of their services. In case such orders were not passed, this Court will initiate suo motu contempt notice so that, the claim of the eligible is not kept pending for indefinite period so as to cause harm such employees. 14. Further, the argument that the Union of India is not a party. It may be noticed that the issue was raised when the Government of India pay SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document LPA-2933-2025(O&M) LPA-649-2021 (O&M) LPA-3123-2025 (O&M) LPA-3418-2025 (O&M) LPA-3618-2025 (O&M) LPA-3806-2025 (O&M) LPA-3450-2025 (O&M) 8 | P a g e scales were not implemented. Even if, in the interregnum the Government of India pay scale has been adopted but when the writ petitions were filed, the Punjab rules were applicable and they are to be considered on the basis of such rules only though, subsequently, in the interregnum, the Union of India rules have been made applicable but, the present directions given by the learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2025 for regularization is not been only on the basis of the policy of the Government of India or Government of Punjab but also based upon the settled principles of law noticed hereinbefore which has to be implemented even if the rules have been amended in the interregnum in the year of 2020. 15. The present appeals including LPA No.649 of 2021, which is filed by Clerks etc, stands disposed of in the above-discussed terms. 16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed accordingly. 17. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 20, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHUBHAM 2026.07.27 13:56 I am the author of this document