CWP-21963 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (129) Hapreet Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. approached this Court, by filing a CWP his services, which were non-available of the budget. 2. this Court, for about 09 years Coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawing an order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P representation of the petitioner. 3. the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala (respondent No.1), speaking order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P 21963-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Hapreet Singh Versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court, by filing a CWP-7306 his services, which were discontinued way back available of the budget. The writ petition (supra), remained pending adjudication before this Court, for about 09 years, and ultimately, it was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawing an order dated 05.03.2026 nnexure P-3), with a direction upon the respondent No.1, to decide the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was decided, the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala (respondent No.1), ing order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21963-2026 Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI , Advocate and Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had 7306-2017, seeking relief to continue way back on 22.03.2012, due to remained pending adjudication before , and ultimately, it was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawing an order dated 05.03.2026 upon the respondent No.1, to decide the representation of the petitioner was decided, the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala (respondent No.1), by passing a ing order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the relief sought This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had continue on 22.03.2012, due to remained pending adjudication before , and ultimately, it was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawing an order dated 05.03.2026 upon the respondent No.1, to decide the representation of the petitioner was decided, by by passing a whereby, the relief sought MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21963 by the petitioner was declined. order, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the speaking order (supra). 4. 15.05.2026 (Annexure P 2009, as a Mali, on a daily wage basis dispensed with on 22.03.2012, on account of non The respondent/authorities concerned, re and find that even at present, there is no specific provision post of a Mali, on a daily wage petitioner for re 5. of the speak manifestly discriminatory manner to continue in service, To support this, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon internal communication dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P 6. petitioner’s plea of discrimination is misplaced for two reasons; firstly, the individuals cited in Department, “Botanical Garden Temporary Labour/Work Charged Staff”. said communication this Court is bereft of any material to demonstrate that those workmen were actually retained thereafter. 21963-2026 by the petitioner was declined. Fetching grievance from the said speaking order, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order (supra). What surfaced from perusal of the speaking order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2009, as a Mali, on a daily wage basis dispensed with on 22.03.2012, on account of non The respondent/authorities concerned, re-considered the c that even at present, there is no specific provision a Mali, on a daily wage (muster roll), and therefore, the claim petitioner for re-appointment cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the legality of the speaking order (supra), submits that the respondents have acted in a manifestly discriminatory manner, as similar to continue in service, even after the petitioner To support this, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon communication dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P The aforesaid contention, however, merits rejection. The petitioner’s plea of discrimination is misplaced for two reasons; firstly, the individuals cited in Annexure P-5, were attached to the Department, and drawn against a distinct budgetary “Botanical Garden Temporary Labour/Work Charged Staff”. said communication pertains to 22.05.2012 this Court is bereft of any material to demonstrate that those workmen were tained thereafter. Neither any relevant document has been brought 2 etching grievance from the said speaking order, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the legality of the What surfaced from perusal of the speaking order dated 1), is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2009, as a Mali, on a daily wage basis (muster roll). His services were dispensed with on 22.03.2012, on account of non-availability of the budget. considered the case of the petitioner, that even at present, there is no specific provision of Budget, for the (muster roll), and therefore, the claim of the appointment cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the legality ing order (supra), submits that the respondents have acted in a , as similarly situated Mali(s) were allowed after the petitioner’s services were dispensed with. To support this, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon communication dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P-5). resaid contention, however, merits rejection. The petitioner’s plea of discrimination is misplaced for two reasons; firstly, the were attached to the Horticulture and drawn against a distinct budgetary allocation specifically “Botanical Garden Temporary Labour/Work Charged Staff”. Secondly, the 22.05.2012, and the record so placed before this Court is bereft of any material to demonstrate that those workmen were Neither any relevant document has been brought etching grievance from the said speaking legality of the What surfaced from perusal of the speaking order dated 1), is that the petitioner was appointed in the year (muster roll). His services were ability of the budget. ase of the petitioner, Budget, for the of the Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the legality ing order (supra), submits that the respondents have acted in a were allowed ’s services were dispensed with. To support this, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an resaid contention, however, merits rejection. The petitioner’s plea of discrimination is misplaced for two reasons; firstly, the Horticulture allocation specifically the the record so placed before this Court is bereft of any material to demonstrate that those workmen were Neither any relevant document has been brought MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21963 on record to substantiate that the said individuals are still continuing against the allocated 7. petitioner, seeking re dismissed. July 20, 2026 Manpreet 21963-2026 on record to substantiate that the said individuals are still continuing against the allocated budget under the relevant head. In view of the above, no right, whatsoever, exists in fav petitioner, seeking re-employment. Consequently, the instant writ petition is 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3 on record to substantiate that the said individuals are still continuing against under the relevant head. In view of the above, no right, whatsoever, exists in favour of the employment. Consequently, the instant writ petition is (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No on record to substantiate that the said individuals are still continuing against our of the employment. Consequently, the instant writ petition is MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment