IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-15591-2026 Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Surinder Pal Singh and others ….Petitioners V/S State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Roy and Ms. Priya Tarial, Advocates for respondent No.4. **** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the legal notices dated 26.07.2023 & 10.02.2024 (Annexures P-13 & P-16) served by the petitioners for rectification of anomaly in pay fixation in view of the speaking order dated 21.05.2015 (Annexure P-10) as well as the affidavit dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure P-9) filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana before this Court in COCP No.1511 of 2015. 2. On receipt of advance copy, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4 have put in appearance and submit that the petitioners stood retired from service between the year 2016 to VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.27 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-15591-2026 -2- 2020 and the said fact has not been mentioned in the petition. They further submit that the earlier petition filed by the petitioners bearing CWP No.2296 of 2024 titled as ‘Jaspal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’, claiming the same relief as claimed in the instant petition, was withdrawn by the petitioners, vide order dated 05.02.2024, which reads as under :- “1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs.140-300 from the date of their appointment in view of judgment dated 30.05.2008 passed in CWP-10759-1990 titled as ‘Rajinder Pal Gautam And others Vs. State of Punjab’ confirmed in LPA-44-2009 decided on 15.02.2010. 2. After arguing the case for sometime and realising that the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to pursue the departmental remedies. 3. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.” 3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the instant petition. 3. Dismissed as withdrawn. 27.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.27 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document