137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21077-2026 Date of Decision : 14.07.2026 HARPREET PAL SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents to grant him the pay scale of Rs.15,600- 39,100+Grade Pay Rs.5,700/- (corresponding pay scale under 6th Punjab Pay Commission i.e. Rs.60,900/- w.e.f.01.01.2016), on the post of Workshop Superintendent, as mentioned in Advertisement dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure P-1), from the date of entry into service, alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum, in the light of decision dated 13.09.2024, rendered in CWP-15896-2023 (Saurabh Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and another), and also the decision dated 15.12.2025 in CWP-8012 of 2024 (Baljit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others). He also seeks quashing of instructions dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-2), the appointment letter dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-5), and Regularisation Order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure P-6). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, had already approached the respondent authorities, vide representation DHARAM VIR 2026.07.14 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21077-2026 -2- dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-8), as regards his concerned/grievance. However, owing to a lackadaisical and indolent approach of the authorities concerned, the representation (supra) has failed to evoke any response, despite lapse of a considerable time. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service. At the outset, he fairly submits that he has no objection, in case, a mandamus is passed upon the respondents, to take a final decision upon the representation (supra) in a time bound manner. 5. In view of the above, and since a bona fide and innocuous prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of, by issuing a mandamus upon the competent authority amongst the respondents, to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-8), by passing a speaking order(s), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. However, in the event of default in compliance of the hereinabove direction, the petitioner is at liberty to move an apt application/motion for revival of the instant petition. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 14, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No DHARAM VIR 2026.07.14 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document