128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24539-2025 Date of Decision:25.08.2025 Gagandeep Singh and Others …Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and Others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate for the petitioners. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents to grant the minimum of the pay scale along with D.A to the petitioners, which is meant for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist i.e. post on which the petitioners are working for the last several years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of “State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2016 (4) SCT 641 (Annexure P-4) and various other judgments passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel next contends that the petitioners have already submitted a representation (Annexure P-19) to the official respondents and no decision has been conveyed to them by the respondents so far and he shall be satisfied, in case appropriate directions are issued to the respondents, at this HITESH 2025.08.26 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24539-2025 -2 stage to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners. He further contends that even the benefit claimed by the petitioners has already been released to similarly placed employees, who had also approached this Court by way of CWP-5750-2021. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents and has no serious objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the representation (Annexure P-19) submitted by the petitioners within a period of three months of date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. While deciding the representation, the respondent No.1 shall take into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2016 (4) SCT 641 (Annexure P-4) and all other relevant rules/instructions of the respondents-department. 9. It is expected that respondent No.1 shall pass a speaking and well reasoned order and in case, it is found that the petitioners are entitled to any relief, all consequential benefits may also be allowed to them, in accordance with law. 10. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 25.08.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.08.26 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh