CWP-20327-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jagsir Singh State of Punjab & CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of services of the petitioner posts for the last more than 7 Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SC 296 and by this Court in another (CWP been sought to grant all consequential benefits i.e. with payment of arrears of pay & allowances, due increments, consideration of relative seni date of their regularization. equal pay scale along with other benefits to the petitioner, till they are 2026 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagsir Singh & others Versus State of Punjab & another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Dr. Sumati Jund and Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, who are stated to have been working on various posts for the last more than 7-8 years in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 2025 and by this Court in Daljeet Singh & others Vs. Sta (CWP-5684-2026 decided on 22.04.2026 been sought to grant all consequential benefits i.e. with payment of arrears of pay & allowances, due increments, consideration of relative seniority & resultant promotion thereof to the petitioners from the date of their regularization. Further, directions have been sought to grant equal pay scale along with other benefits to the petitioner, till they are IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20327-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 …Petitioners …Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Dr. Sumati Jund and Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocates, Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the s, who are stated to have been working on various 8 years in view of the judgment rendered by Jaggo Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 2025 Daljeet Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & 22.04.2026). Further, directions have been sought to grant all consequential benefits i.e. regular pay scale along with payment of arrears of pay & allowances, due increments, consideration ority & resultant promotion thereof to the petitioners from the directions have been sought to grant equal pay scale along with other benefits to the petitioner, till they are The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the s, who are stated to have been working on various 8 years in view of the judgment rendered by Jaggo Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 2025 te of Punjab & Further, directions have regular pay scale along with payment of arrears of pay & allowances, due increments, consideration ority & resultant promotion thereof to the petitioners from the directions have been sought to grant equal pay scale along with other benefits to the petitioner, till they are VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20327-2026 (O&M) regularized in view of law laid down by of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 been sought to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners. 2. appointed by the competent authority through various posts with respondent continuously working regular sanctioned posts and their work and conduct However, their services have not been regularized and for the said purpose, they have served a legal notice dated action has been taken thereon 3. respondent No.2/PRTC necessary facts appointment of the through whom they were engaged, nor has the as a party respondent to verify the He further submits that the reliance placed by the p judgment of this Court in the operation of the Bench on 01.0 Corporation, Patiala Vs. Daljit Singh & others interim order Transport Corporation & another Vs. Jasdeep Singh & others common judgmen 2026 (O&M) (2) in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 been sought to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the It has been stated in the petition that the petitioners were appointed by the competent authority through various posts with respondent No.2/PRTC. continuously working on out-source basis for the last ab regular sanctioned posts and their work and conduct However, their services have not been regularized and for the said purpose, they have served a legal notice dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P been taken thereon. Upon receipt of advance copy, respondent No.2/PRTC submits that the present petition is bereft of necessary facts. He submits that the petition does not disclose the dates of appointment of the petitioners, the particulars of the out through whom they were engaged, nor has the party respondent to verify the factual averments made in the petition. He further submits that the reliance placed by the p judgment of this Court in Daljeet Singh’s case operation of the said judgment already 01.07.2026 in LPA-1549-2026 titled ‘ Corporation, Patiala Vs. Daljit Singh & others interim order dated 21.05.2026 passed in LPA Transport Corporation & another Vs. Jasdeep Singh & others judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148. Still further, directions have been sought to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the It has been stated in the petition that the petitioners were appointed by the competent authority through an out-sourcing agency on PRTC. The petitioners have been for the last about 7-8 years against regular sanctioned posts and their work and conduct has been appreciated. However, their services have not been regularized and for the said purpose, 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), but no receipt of advance copy, learned counsel representing submits that the present petition is bereft of the petition does not disclose the dates of the particulars of the out-sourcing agency through whom they were engaged, nor has the said agency been impleaded averments made in the petition. He further submits that the reliance placed by the petitioners upon the Daljeet Singh’s case (supra) is also misplaced, as said judgment already stands stayed by a Division 2026 titled ‘Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Daljit Singh & others’ while relying upon the earlier passed in LPA-1410-2026 titled ‘Pepsu Road Transport Corporation & another Vs. Jasdeep Singh & others’, wherein the learned Single Judge on 22.04.2026 in a State have been sought to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the It has been stated in the petition that the petitioners were on petitioners have been 8 years against . However, their services have not been regularized and for the said purpose, no learned counsel representing submits that the present petition is bereft of the petition does not disclose the dates of sourcing agency impleaded averments made in the petition. etitioners upon the misplaced, as by a Division Road Transport earlier Pepsu Road , wherein the on 22.04.2026 in a VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20327-2026 (O&M) bunch of writ petitions, with as the lead case, had also been stayed 4. nature could have been instituted, particularly when the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had represented the respondents Division Bench and was, therefore, fully aware of the subsequent developments. Despite such knowledge, neither the said stay orders nor the factum of the judgments having been stayed has been disclosed in the present petition. Such suppression of material facts cannot be countenanced wastage of the precious time of the Court. dismiss this petition with costs, as it is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out as well 5. submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better partic 6. payment of costs of Rs.20,000/ Lawyers Welfare Fund receipt of such deposit shall be that may be action. 08.07.2026 Vimal 2026 (O&M) (3) writ petitions, with Daljeet Singh’s case (supra) as the lead case, had also been stayed. This Court is rather surprised as to how a petition of the present nature could have been instituted, particularly when the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had represented the respondents Division Bench in the proceedings culminati and was, therefore, fully aware of the subsequent developments. Despite such knowledge, neither the said stay orders nor the factum of the judgments having been stayed has been disclosed in the present petition. Such sion of material facts cannot be countenanced wastage of the precious time of the Court. dismiss this petition with costs, as it is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out as well as to prevent the filing Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better partic Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the Lawyers Welfare Fund, within a period of one month from today receipt of such deposit shall be attached with that may be filed on behalf of the present petitioners Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Daljeet Singh’s case (supra) [CWP-5684-2026] This Court is rather surprised as to how a petition of the present nature could have been instituted, particularly when the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had represented the respondents before the in the proceedings culminating in the aforesaid stay orders and was, therefore, fully aware of the subsequent developments. Despite such knowledge, neither the said stay orders nor the factum of the judgments having been stayed has been disclosed in the present petition. Such sion of material facts cannot be countenanced with, as it amounts to wastage of the precious time of the Court. Thus, this Court is inclined to dismiss this petition with costs, as it is a necessary instrument which has to as to prevent the filing of such cases. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with better particulars. with liberty as prayed for, subject to to be deposited with the High Court , within a period of one month from today. The attached with the subsequent writ petition filed on behalf of the present petitioners on the same cause of (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2026] This Court is rather surprised as to how a petition of the present nature could have been instituted, particularly when the learned counsel before the ng in the aforesaid stay orders and was, therefore, fully aware of the subsequent developments. Despite such knowledge, neither the said stay orders nor the factum of the judgments having been stayed has been disclosed in the present petition. Such , as it amounts to inclined to dismiss this petition with costs, as it is a necessary instrument which has to Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with , subject to High Court . The the subsequent writ petition on the same cause of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.09 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.