CWP-19014-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CWP-19014-2026 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Union of India and another ...Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate, along with Mr. K. Vinay, Advocate, for caveators/respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 5. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) by which the benefit of retrospective regularization from the initial date of appointment, as extended to the other similarly situated employees, has been granted to the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the PGI recommended the case of the respondents for the grant of similar benefit to the respondents as granted to the other two employees namely Mr. Jatinder Singh and Ms. Davida Sodhi to the competent authority i.e. Union of India but the competent authority only granted the regularization prospectively to the respondents and not from the initial date of joining, the grant of the same benefit by the Tribunal is incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though it is a conceded fact that from the date ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19014-2026 2 of initial appointment in the year 2006 and since then the respondents are working in regular pay scale along with the increment but, once the competent authority i.e. Government of India, did not accept the proposal of regularizing the services of respondents from the date of initial appointment, there was no other option but to regularize their service prospectively, when their case was considered in the year 2018, hence, the Tribunal missed the said aspect while granting the benefit to the respondents. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records with their able assistance. 4. Once it is a matter of fact that two employees who are similarly situated, were granted the benefit of regularization w.e.f. the initial date of appointment, non-grant of the said benefit to the respondents is amount to violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Every employee needs to be treated in the same manner as the other similarly situated employee has been dealt with. Further the employer i.e. PGIMER, Chandigarh, where the respondents were working, conceded the fact even before the Union of India while recommending their case that they are also entitled for the benefit of regularization from their initial date of appointment i.e. (retrospectively) but, without giving any reason, by a four line order, the proposal was made to regularize their services prospectively. Even the Union of India did not consider that once a similarly situated employees have been allowed the benefit of regularization from a retrospective date, hence denying the same to the other set of similarly situated employee will amount to discrimination. The said discrimination has been removed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19014-2026 3 dated 05.09.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the abovesaid fact. 5. Further it may be noticed that retrospective regularization will not entail any financial liability upon the petitioner for the reason that from the day one i.e. from 2006 onward the respondents were working in a regular pay scale with increment were being regularly granted. That being so, for all intent and purposes except their services being termed as regular, the benefits were being given to them as far as the monthly pay and the increments were there from the date of initial appointment in the year 2006. It was only in the year 2018, when their services were prospectively regularized, the grant of arrear was stopped which benefit has been allowed to them from the date it was stopped. Once, the respondents were getting the increment regularly for a period of more than 12 years, stopping the said increment so as to adjust the earlier increment granted on the ground of prospective regularization of their seniority is not at all correct on the part of the petitioners. 6. Further, the judgment can only be interfered with in case the same is perverse either on fact or on law. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the judgment is perverse either on fact or on law, especially when it is a conceded fact that the two similarly situated employees have already been granted the benefit of regularization retrospectively from their initial date of appointment which benefit has been granted by the Tribunal to the respondents. 7. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19014-2026 4 interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 03, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.09 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document