IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 CWP-21255-2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Surjit @ Surjit Masih ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Ms. Nihar B. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner. NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of regularization after completion of 10 years of service from the initial date of appointment i.e. 01.03.1995 (becoming due on 01.03.2005), in terms of policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) and to fix his pay and seniority from the due date of regularization i.e. 01.03.2005 or in alternative from 29.09.2008, when similarly situated employees were granted the said benefits along with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 18% per annum and pensionary benefits calculated from 01.03.2005. Further, to consider and grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Lineman at par with his juniors along with all consequential benefits, including arrears with interest @ 18% per annum. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P- 6), whereby the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of benefit of regularization, proper fixation of pay and seniority and consequential promotion and the benefits have been restricted from 13.01.2012 instead of due date. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of his grievances, the petitioner has also submitted representation dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) to the respondents which is still pending VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.15 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21255-2026 -2- consideration. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said representation, by passing a speaking order, in a time bound manner. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate has put in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6. They have no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide representation dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereon shall be conveyed to the petitioner. (NAMIT KUMAR) 15.07.2026 JUDGE kothiyal Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.15 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document