IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CWP-22611-2026 Date of decision : 23.07.2026 Arsh Deep Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate with Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the circular dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-7) as the same has created two classes in a homogeneous class of employees whose service is governed by common service rules i.e. Ministerial Services Class III Rules, 1985 (Annexure P-4) on the basis of date of their appointment, i.e. prior and after 17.07.2020 on the post of Clerk/LDC; Finance Circulars dated 09.09.2020, 27.02.2025 & 16.04.2025 (Annexures P-8, P-21 & P-22); condition No.3 as prescribing pay scales in the advertisement dated 21.05.2021; and conditions under clause 2(a) & (c) of the appointment letter dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-2). Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to implement common/identical pay scales as are applicable for all the employees, irrespective of the date of their appointments and to grant the petitioners regular pay scale at par with their counterparts appointed prior to 17.07.2020 under the 6th Pay Commission with grade pay, increments and allowances from the date of their appointments, as applicable to regularized Clerks. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.27272 of 2025 titled as ‘Vasudha Sharma and others Vs. VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.24 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-22611-2026 -2- The State of Punjab and others’ and other connected case decided on 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-25). He further submits that for redressal of their grievances, the petitioners have also submitted representation dated 02.03.2026 (wrongly mentioned as 07.04.2025 in the petition) (Annexure P-24) to the respondents which is still pending consideration. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioners 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 respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Ankit Gaur, Advocate has put in appearance through V.C. and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3-PSPCL. They have no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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.3 to consider and decide representation dated 02.03.2026 (wrongly mentioned as 07.04.2025 in the petition) (Annexure P-24) submitted by the petitioners, in the light of judgment passed in Vasudha Sharma’s case (supra), expeditiously, by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, 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 petitioners. (NAMIT KUMAR) 23.07.2026 JUDGE kothiyal Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.24 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document