135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19937-2026 Date of Decision : 06.07.2026 DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner (Through V.C.) Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. Through the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a direction upon respondents no.4 and 5 to grant beneift of 3% increment under ACP Scheme to the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made a representation to the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (respondent no.3), to grant extra 3% increment to all the regular employees under ACP Scheme, specifically in view of the decision taken in view of BFUHS letter 08- BFUHS/Estt.III/2016/3724, dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure P-2), and till date, no final decision has been taken on the said representation. 3. He further, at the outset submits that he limits his prayer at this stage, to the extent of passing a mandamus upon the respondent no.3 to decide the aforesaid representation in a time bound CWP-19937-2026 -2- manner. He further submits that the petitioners want to submit a detail representation before this authority concerned, in order to substantiate the contents of the earlier representation (Annexure P-3). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, who is on an advance notice, submits that he has no objection, if the aforesaid direction is passed upon respondent no.3. 5. In view of the above, at this stage, the instant petition is disposed of. However, in case the petitioners moves any representation in addition to earlier representation, within a period of 07 days from today, a mandamus is passed upon respondent no.3, to make all its endeavours to decide the same within a period of six weeks thereafter, by passing a speaking order. 6. In case respondent no.3 is of the view that the petitioners do not deserve the asked for relief, they shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing, such speaking order. 7. It goes without saying that in case respondent no.3, fails to pass speaking order within the stipulated time period, the petitioners would be at liberty to get the instant petition revived, by filing an apposite application. 8. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 06, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No