129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22511-2026 Date of Decision : 23.07.2026 AMANPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. Through the instant petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents to grant the statutory pay scale of the petitioners as mandated in the 2018 RULES VIZ 10300-34800 plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/- from entry into service along with arrears and interest at 12% thereon, keeping in view the fact that similar question of law has already been decided by this Court while deciding the CWP-15896 of 2023 i.e “Saurabh Sharma and Others vs State of Punjab and Another" (Annexure P-11) which was upheld by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-22), and further upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-23), and also keeping in view the Order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-10), DHARAM VIR 2026.07.27 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22511-2026 -2- which was passed in case of Master/Mistress Working in Education Department, in the interest of justice. They further seek quashing of the instructions dated 21.10.2020 and 17.07.2020 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively) as well as of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-9). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of their grievance, they have made a representation dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-21), upon the respondents. However, due to the indolent and lackadaisical approach of the respondents, the same has not been decided, as yet. 3. He further submits that, at this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied, in case a mandamus is passed upon respondents, to take a final decision on their representation (supra), in a time bound manner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, who is on an advance notice, submits that he has no objection, if the aforesaid direction is passed upon the respondent authorities. 5. In view of the above, and considering the prayer, as made by learned counsel for the petitioners, being innocuous and bona fide, this Court, without observing anything on merits of the instant case, directs the competent authority amongst the respondents, to take a final decision on the representation (supra), by passing a speaking order, within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. Disposed of accordingly. DHARAM VIR 2026.07.27 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22511-2026 -3- 7. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioners to seek revival of the instant writ petition in the event the respondents fail to comply with the directions issued, hereinabove. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 23, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No DHARAM VIR 2026.07.27 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document