As per case facts, multiple Writ Petitions were filed seeking promotional increments after 23 years of regular service, along with interest, based on departmental instructions and previous High Court judgments. ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP-28852
IN THE
209(128 cases)
1.
ROSHAN LAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
2.
BIKKAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP
3.
BALWINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
4.
MANGAT RAI
1
28852-2017 and connected others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
cases) Date of Decision:
ROSHAN LAL
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
BIKKAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD & ORS
BALWINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD & ORS
MANGAT RAI
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: October 30, 2025
CWP-28852- 2017
…PETITIONER
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-11974- 2017
…PETITIONER
LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-11975- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORP LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-11976- 2017
…PETITIONER
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
CWP-28852
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP
5.
JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS
PUNJAB STATE
6.
HARINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
7.
BIMAL KUMAR
BHAKRA BEAS
8.
SUKHMANDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
2
28852-2017 and connected others
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD & ORS
JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS
HARINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
BIMAL KUMAR
VERSUS
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD
SUKHMANDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-13237- 2021
…PETITIONERS
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-14085- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-14798- 2021
…PETITIONER
MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-15842- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
… RESPONDENTS
2021
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2021
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
9.
PRITAM SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP.
10.
KARAM SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP.
11.
RAJ KUMAR KANDA
PUNJAB STATE POWER
12.
HARCHAND SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWERCORP. LTD. AND ORS.
13.
BALWANT SINGH
3
28852-2017 and connected others
PRITAM SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
KARAM SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
RAJ KUMAR KANDA
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
HARCHAND SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWERCORP. LTD. AND ORS.
BALWANT SINGH
CWP-15852- 2023
…PETITIONER
LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-15862- 2023
…PETITIONER
LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-15863- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-15880- 2023
…PETITIONER
PUNJAB STATE POWERCORP. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-15971- 2023
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
CWP-28852
PUNJAB STATE POWER
14.
ROOP SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP.
15.
RAGHBIR CHAND
PUNJAB STATE POWER
16.
SATPAL SINGH AND ORS.
PUNJAB STATEPOWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
17.
VIRENDER SINGH SAINI
4
28852-2017 and connected others
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
ROOP SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
RAGHBIR CHAND
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
SATPAL SINGH AND ORS.
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATEPOWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
VIRENDER SINGH SAINI
VERSUS
…PETITIONER
CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16020- 2023
…PETITIONER
LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16022- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16086- 2023
…PETITIONERS
PUNJAB STATEPOWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-17647- 2023
…PETITIONER
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
CWP-28852
PUNJAB STATE
18.
MEHAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP.
19.
JAGDISH RAI PURI
PUNJAB STATE POWER
20.
KARTAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
21.
HARI CHAND
PUNJAB STATE POWER
5
28852-2017 and connected others
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
MEHAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
JAGDISH RAI PURI
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
KARTAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS
HARI CHAND
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16024- 2023
LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16052- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORP. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16162- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-17348- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
… RESPONDENTS
2023
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
22.
NIRBHAY SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
23.
PARMESHWAR DIN
STATE OF PUNJAB
DIRECTOR,
24.
GURDAS RAM
PUNJAB STATE POWER
25.
BEANT SINGH AND ORS.
PUNJAB STATE
6
28852-2017 and connected others
NIRBHAY SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
PARMESHWAR DIN
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM
DIRECTOR, PSPCL, PATIALA AND OTHERS
GURDAS RAM
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ANR.
BEANT SINGH AND ORS.
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
CWP-17799- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18056- 2022
…PETITIONER
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
PATIALA AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18309- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ANR.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18348- 2022
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
MANAGING
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
26.
AJAIB SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
27.
KHUSHWINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE
28.
GURDIAL CHAND
PUNJAB STATE POWER
29.
HAKAM SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
7
28852-2017 and connected others
AJAIB SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
KHUSHWINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
GURDIAL CHAND
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
HAKAM SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
CWP-18405- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18418- 2022
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18420- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18435- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
30.
MADHO RAM AND ORS.
PUNJAB STATE
31.
HARI RAM
PUNJAB STATE POWER
32.
DINESH THAKUR
PUNJAB STATE POWER
33.
BHARAT BHUSHAN
PUNJAB STATE POWER
8
28852-2017 and connected others
MADHO RAM AND ORS.
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
HARI RAM
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
DINESH THAKUR
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
BHARAT BHUSHAN
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
CWP-18438- 2022
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18698- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18724- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18729- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
34.
HARIKISHAN LAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER
35.
HARBANS SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
36.
AMAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
37.
CHHANGA SINGH
PSPCL AND ANR.
9
28852-2017 and connected others
HARIKISHAN LAL
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
HARBANS SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
AMAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR
CHHANGA SINGH
VERSUS
PSPCL AND ANR.
CWP-18849- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-19833- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-19835-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-19841-2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
38.
GURMAIL SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
39.
MOHINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
40.
PITAMBER DUTT
PUNJAB STATE POWER
41.
TEJA SINGH AND OTHERS
PUNJAB STATE
10
28852-2017 and connected others
GURMAIL SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD./PSPCL AND OTHERS
MOHINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
PITAMBER DUTT
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
TEJA SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
CWP-19867-2021
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD./PSPCL AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-19986-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-20-2024
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-2009-2024
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD./PSPCL AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
42.
ASHOK KUMAR SEHGAL
PUNJAB STATE
43.
BIRJESH KUMAR
PUNJAB STATE POWER
44.
HARCHAND SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
45.
MOHINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
11
28852-2017 and connected others
ASHOK KUMAR SEHGAL
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
BIRJESH KUMAR
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
HARCHAND SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
MOHINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
CWP-20625-2023
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-20748-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-20789-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-20791-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
46.
RAJINDER KUMAR
THE PUNJAB STATE
OTHERS
47.
SUMITER SINGH AND OTHERS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORAITON LTD. AND OTHERS
48.
KAILASH CHANDER
PUNJAB STATE POWER
49.
HUKAM CHAND
PUNJAB STATE POWER
12
28852-2017 and connected others
RAJINDER KUMAR
VERSUS
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
SUMITER SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
STATE POWER CORPORAITON LTD. AND OTHERS
KAILASH CHANDER
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
HUKAM CHAND
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR
CWP-20831-2021
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-20973-2023
…PETITIONERS
STATE POWER CORPORAITON LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-21001-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-21125-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
50.
PIRTHIPAL SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
51.
TEJA SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
52.
GURCHARAN SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
53.
BHAJAN SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
13
28852-2017 and connected others
PIRTHIPAL SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
TEJA SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
GURCHARAN SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ANR
BHAJAN SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
CWP-21459-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-21630-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-21774-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ANR
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-22257-2021
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
54.
KULDIP SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
55.
SHAM SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
56.
SHUSHAM LATA DUTTA
PUNJAB STATE
57.
WASAVA RAM
PUNJAB STATE POWER
14
28852-2017 and connected others
KULDIP SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
SHAM SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
SHUSHAM LATA DUTTA
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
WASAVA RAM
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
CWP-23181-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-23599-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-13720-2023
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-14539-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
58.
AMAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
59.
JAGDEV SINGH AND ORS
PUNJAB STATE
60.
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS
PUNJAB STATE
61.
SITA RAM
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN.
15
28852-2017 and connected others
RA-CW- 288
AMAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
JAGDEV SINGH AND ORS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
SITA RAM
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.
288-2018 IN CWP-14548-2018
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16074-2023
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16087-2023
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-1906-2023
…PETITIONER
LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
62.
BHAJAN LAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER
63.
PREM LATA
PUNJAB STATE POWER
64.
SURINDER PAL SHARMA
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
65.
JASWANT SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
16
28852-2017 and connected others
BHAJAN LAL
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
PREM LATA
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
SURINDER PAL SHARMA
Versus
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
JASWANT SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD & ORS
CWP-23836-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25428-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-10731-2017
… PETITIONER
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-10793- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORP LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
… PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
66.
RAM SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
67.
CHET RAM
PUNJAB STATE POWER
68.
PRITAM SINGH SINCE DECEASED
PUNJAB STATE POWER
69.
KEWAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER
17
28852-2017 and connected others
RAM SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS
CHET RAM
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
PRITAM SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
CWP-24961- 2018
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25429-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25433-2022
THROUGH JASPAL KAUR
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25434-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
2018
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
70.
SURJAN SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
71.
SHAM LAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER
72.
SURAJ PARSHAD
PUNJAB STATE POWER
73.
HARDIYAL SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
18
28852-2017 and connected others
SURJAN SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
SHAM LAL
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
SURAJ PARSHAD
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
HARDIYAL SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
CWP-25436-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25439-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25446-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25495-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
74.
RAMESH CHANDER
PUNJAB STATE POWER
75.
JANARADHAN MAHTO
PUNJAB STATE
76.
DUNGAR RAM
PUNJAB STATE POWER
77.
RAVI KANT
PUNJAB STATE POWER
19
28852-2017 and connected others
RAMESH CHANDER
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
JANARADHAN MAHTO
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
DUNGAR RAM
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS
RAVI KANT
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
CWP-25573-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25586-2022
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25597-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25766-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
78.
USHA RANI
PUNJAB STATE POWER
79.
NAND KISHORE
PSPCL AND ORS.
80.
BHAGWAN SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
81.
PARAMJIT SINGH SAINI
PUNJAB STATE
20
28852-2017 and connected others
USHA RANI
VERSUS
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
NAND KISHORE
VERSUS
PSPCL AND ORS.
BHAGWAN SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
PARAMJIT SINGH SAINI
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
CWP-25891-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-27663-2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-22162-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-8183-2019
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
82.
BHARATVIR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
83.
AMRIK SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
84.
SUDESH KUMAR
PUNJAB STATE POWER
85.
RAGHUBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
21
28852-2017 and connected others
BHARATVIR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
AMRIK SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
SUDESH KUMAR
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
RAGHUBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
CWP-34514-2019
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-8171-2019
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-8181-2019
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-2894-2023
…PETITIONERS
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
86.
BALDEV SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
87.
MEHNGA SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
88.
SURINDER KUMAR
PUNJAB STATE POWER
89.
AJAIB SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
22
28852-2017 and connected others
BALDEV SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
MEHNGA SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
SURINDER KUMAR
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
AJAIB SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS
CWP-871-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LIMITED
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-7043-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-24435-2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-24783-2018
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
90.
BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS
PUNJAB STATE
91.
SUDESH KUMAR ABROL
THE PUNJAB STATE
OTHERS
92.
MADHU BALA AND ORS
PUNJAB STATE
93.
MANGAT SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
23
28852-2017 and connected others
BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
SUDESH KUMAR ABROL
VERSUS
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
MADHU BALA AND ORS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
RA-CW- 247
MANGAT SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD AND ORS
CWP-23040-2018
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-2564-2023
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-25722-2018
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
247-2017 IN CWP-19952-2015
…PETITIONER
CORP LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
94.
SUNITA KUMARI
P.S.P.C.L & ORS
95.
BALBIR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
96.
PARMJIT SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
97.
BIKKAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
24
28852-2017 and connected others
RA-CW- 249
SUNITA KUMARI
VERSUS
P.S.P.C.L & ORS
RA-CW- 251
BALBIR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
PARMJIT SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
BIKKAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
249-2017 IN CWP-23798-2015
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
251-2017 IN CWP-24283-2015
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-27030- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16419- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
98.
GURDIAL SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
99.
JASMAIL SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
100.
OM PARKASH RAI
PUNJAB STATE POWER
101.
JAGWANT SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
25
28852-2017 and connected others
GURDIAL SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
JASMAIL SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD & ORS
OM PARKASH RAI
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD & ORS
JAGWANT SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
CWP-16799- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-17451- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18827- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-27031- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
102.
MOHINDER SINGH DHALIWAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
103.
PURSHOTAM CHAND SHARMA
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
104.
GURINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
105.
GURMUKH SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
26
28852-2017 and connected others
MOHINDER SINGH DHALIWAL
VERSUS
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
PURSHOTAM CHAND SHARMA
VERSUS
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
GURINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
GURMUKH SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
CWP-27032- 2017
…PETITIONER
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-27033- 2017
…PETITIONER
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-27034- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-27405- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
106.
MUKHTIAR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
107.
TARA SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP
108.
AMAR BAHADUR
THE CHAIRMAN
POWERCORP.LTD
109.
GURMEET SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
27
28852-2017 and connected others
MUKHTIAR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
TARA SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD & ORS
AMAR BAHADUR
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN -CUMMANAGING
POWERCORP.LTD
GURMEET SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
CWP-28850- 2017
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28851- 2017
…PETITIONER
LTD & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28176- 2018
…PETITIONER
DIRECTOR, PB STATE
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-29-2024
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2017
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2018
…PETITIONER
PB STATE
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
110.
DARSHAN LAL
PUNJAB STATE POWER
111.
SUKHDEV KAUR
PSPCL AND ORS.
112.
SURINDER KAUR
PUNJAB STATE POWER
113.
GURBACHAN SINGH
PUNJAB STATE
28
28852-2017 and connected others
DARSHAN LAL
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
SUKHDEV KAUR
VERSUS
PSPCL AND ORS.
SURINDER KAUR
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
GURBACHAN SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS
CWP-29008- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-29021- 2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-29168- 2023
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-6820-2016
…PETITIONER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2023
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
114.
RANJIT SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
115.
BIDHI CHAND
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR,
116.
NARANG SINGH AND ORS
PUNJAB STATE
117.
BHINDER SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
29
28852-2017 and connected others
RANJIT SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION AND OTHERS
BIDHI CHAND
VERSUS
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, BBMB AND ORS
NARANG SINGH AND ORS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
BHINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
CWP-8349-2021
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-18846- 2019
…PETITIONER
BBMB AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-6967-2021
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
…. RESPONDENTS
CWP-20759- 2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2019
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
…. RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
118.
NAZAR SINGH AND OTHERS
PUNJAB STATE
119.
JUGRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
PUNJAB STATE
120.
FATEH SINGH
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER
121.
KALU RAM
PSPCL AND OTHERS
30
28852-2017 and connected others
NAZAR SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
JUGRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
FATEH SINGH
VERSUS
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
KALU RAM
VERSUS
PSPCL AND OTHERS
CWP-2390-2025
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-2288-2025
…PETITIONERS
POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-17641- 2018
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-22633- 2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONERS
… RESPONDENTS
2018
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
122.
CHANCHAL SIN
THE CHIEF MANAGING
123.
TAJINDER
PUNJAB STATE POWER
124.
KAUR SINGH
PUNJAB STATE POWER
125.
PIARA SINGH
PSPCL AND OTHERS
31
28852-2017 and connected others
CHANCHAL SINGH
VERSUS
THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, BBMB AND ORS.
TAJINDER SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
KAUR SINGH
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
PIARA SINGH
VERSUS
PSPCL AND OTHERS
CWP-16005- 2018
…PETITIONER
DIRECTOR, BBMB AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-16568- 2025
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-3511-2022
…PETITIONER
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-22228- 2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2018
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2025
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
2022
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-28852
126.
SATISH KUMAR JAGOTA
PUNJAB STATE
127.
KANWAR SINGH
THE PUNJAB STATE
128.
GIAN CHAND
PUNJAB STATE POWER
CORAM:
Present:
32
28852-2017 and connected others
SATISH KUMAR JAGOTA
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
KANWAR SINGH
VERSUS
THE PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.
GIAN CHAND
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Mr. P.K.Goklaney, Advocate and Mr. Ashish
Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.
2017; CWP Nos.15852, 15862, 15863, 15880, 15971, 16020,
16022, 16024, 15842,16052 of 2023, CWP Nos.17799, 18056,
20748, 20789, 20791 of 2022, CWP Nos.21630, 21774 of
2023, CWP No.14548 of 2018, CWP Nos.22228, 22162 of
2022, CWP Nos.8183, 34514 of 2019, CWP Nos.19952, 23798
of 2015, CWP Nos.27030, 16799, 18827, 27031 to 27034,
28850 to 28852 of 2017, CWP No.6820 of 2016, CWP
2022 and CWP-22633-2022.
Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate with
Kamboj, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos
25640, 23181, 13720 of 2023, 22257, 20831 of 2021, 14539,
23826, 25428, 25436, 25439, 25496, 25498, 25523, 25586,
25597 of 2022.
CWP-13731- 2020
…PETITIONER
POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-1920-2023
CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.
… RESPONDENTS
CWP-20689- 2025
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
… RESPONDENTS
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Mr. P.K.Goklaney, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Goklaney,
Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.-11974 to 11976
2017; CWP Nos.15852, 15862, 15863, 15880, 15971, 16020,
16022, 16024, 15842,16052 of 2023, CWP Nos.17799, 18056,
20748, 20789, 20791 of 2022, CWP Nos.21630, 21774 of
f 2018, CWP Nos.22228, 22162 of
2022, CWP Nos.8183, 34514 of 2019, CWP Nos.19952, 23798
of 2015, CWP Nos.27030, 16799, 18827, 27031 to 27034,
28850 to 28852 of 2017, CWP No.6820 of 2016, CWP-20759
Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate with Mr. Samarbir Singh
Kamboj, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos-1906,
25640, 23181, 13720 of 2023, 22257, 20831 of 2021, 14539,
23826, 25428, 25436, 25439, 25496, 25498, 25523, 25586,
2020
…PETITIONER
… RESPONDENTS
… RESPONDENTS
2025
… RESPONDENTS
Goklaney,
11974 to 11976-
2017; CWP Nos.15852, 15862, 15863, 15880, 15971, 16020,
16022, 16024, 15842,16052 of 2023, CWP Nos.17799, 18056,
20748, 20789, 20791 of 2022, CWP Nos.21630, 21774 of
f 2018, CWP Nos.22228, 22162 of
2022, CWP Nos.8183, 34514 of 2019, CWP Nos.19952, 23798
of 2015, CWP Nos.27030, 16799, 18827, 27031 to 27034,
20759-
Mr. Samarbir Singh
1906,
25640, 23181, 13720 of 2023, 22257, 20831 of 2021, 14539,
23826, 25428, 25436, 25439, 25496, 25498, 25523, 25586,
CWP-28852
33
28852-2017 and connected others
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Rupinder Kanwal,
Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWPs 25722
29021, 29168, 29008 of 2023, 20 and 29 of 2024, 17641 of
2018, 16568-2025 and 20689-2025.
Mr. Anosh Samson and Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocates for
the petitioner(s) in CWP-13237
Mr. Sandeep Singh Majithia, Advocate in CWP
Mr. Abhishek Masih and Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocates for
petitioner(s) in CWP-13731-2020.
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal and Mr. Chankirat Singh Bakshi,
Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP
2019.
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP
16074, 16087-2023 and 2009-2024.
Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP
20973, 17647, 16086-2023.
Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for petitioner in CWP
2023.
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP
21001-2023 and 23040-2018.
Ms. Garima Arora, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Jaidka and Mr.
Abhishek Khullar, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in
CWPs-1906, 1920-2023, 2564
2021.
Ms. Seema Kumari and Ms. Ripin Chaudhary, Advocates with
Ms. Sonia G. Singh Samber, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
CWPs-18309-2022, 18348- 2022, 18405
18420-2022, 18435-2022, 18438
2023, 19841-2023, 19986-2023, 276
Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP
14085- 2023.
Ms. Vibha Nagar with Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocates for
Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP
2021.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petition
14798-2021
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Rupinder Kanwal,
Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWPs 25722-2018, 13720,
29021, 29168, 29008 of 2023, 20 and 29 of 2024, 17641 of
2025.
Mr. Anosh Samson and Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocates for
13237-2021.
ndeep Singh Majithia, Advocate in CWP-3511-2022.
Mr. Abhishek Masih and Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocates for
2020.
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal and Mr. Chankirat Singh Bakshi,
Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP-8183, 8171, 8181 of
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP
2024.
Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP
Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for petitioner in CWP-21459
Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP
Ms. Garima Arora, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Jaidka and Mr.
Abhishek Khullar, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in
2023, 2564-2023, 22257-2021 & 20831
Seema Kumari and Ms. Ripin Chaudhary, Advocates with
Ms. Sonia G. Singh Samber, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
2022, 18405-2022, 18418- 2022,
2022, 18438-2022, 19833-2023, 19835
2023, 27663-2022.
Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP
Ms. Vibha Nagar with Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocates for
Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-8349
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Rupinder Kanwal,
2018, 13720,
29021, 29168, 29008 of 2023, 20 and 29 of 2024, 17641 of
Mr. Anosh Samson and Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocates for
Mr. Abhishek Masih and Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocates for
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal and Mr. Chankirat Singh Bakshi,
8183, 8171, 8181 of
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-
Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP-
21459-
Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-
Ms. Garima Arora, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Jaidka and Mr.
Abhishek Khullar, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in
2021 & 20831-
Seema Kumari and Ms. Ripin Chaudhary, Advocates with
Ms. Sonia G. Singh Samber, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
2022,
2023, 19835-
Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP-
Ms. Vibha Nagar with Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocates for
8349-
er in CWP-
CWP-28852
34
28852-2017 and connected others
Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP
20625-2023.
Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP
2021, 2390 & 2288-2025.
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP
19867-2021 & CWP-21125-2023.
Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP
21459-2023.
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWPs
16074 & 16087-2023 and CWP
Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Mr. Anosh Samson,
Advocates for the petitioner in CWP
Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate for the respondents/PSPCL in
CWP Nos.20973 and 19835 of 2023.
Mr. Opinderpal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Bara,
Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL in CWP
Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for the respondent PSPCL in
RA-CW-247-2017 in CWP-19975
Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for the respondents in CWP
2021 for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and in CWP
CWP-25495-2022, CWP-24783
CWP-18849-2022 for respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the respondent PSPCL in
CWPs-25429-2022, 25766-2022, 15863
19833-2023, 21001-2023 and 29
Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent
CWP-25436-25891-17799-20748 of 2
16024-17647- 14085-21630 of 2023.
Mr. Sachin Mittal and Mr.Arnav Mittal, Advocate, for the
respondents/BBMB in CWP-18846
Ms. Preet Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP
2022.
Mr. S.S. Kaliramna, Advocate for the respon
CWP-20625-2023 and CWP-15971
Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP
Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6967
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP
2023.
Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWPs
2023 and CWP-2009-2024.
Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Mr. Anosh Samson,
petitioner in CWP-13237-2021.
Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate for the respondents/PSPCL in
CWP Nos.20973 and 19835 of 2023.
Mr. Opinderpal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Bara,
PSPCL in CWP-29021-2023.
Advocate for the respondent PSPCL in
19975-2015
Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for the respondents in CWP-6967
2021 for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and in CWP-18348-2022,
24783-2018, CWP-16162-2022 &
ndents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the respondent PSPCL in
2022, 15863-2023, 15880-2023,
2023 and 29-2024.
Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent–PSPCL in
20748 of 2022, CWP-16022
21630 of 2023.
Mr. Sachin Mittal and Mr.Arnav Mittal, Advocate, for the
18846-2019.
Ms. Preet Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-18438
Mr. S.S. Kaliramna, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL in
15971- 2023.
Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-
6967-
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-
Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWPs-
Mr. Fateh Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Mr. Anosh Samson,
Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate for the respondents/PSPCL in
Mr. Opinderpal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Bara,
Advocate for the respondent PSPCL in
6967-
2022,
2022 &
Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the respondent PSPCL in
2023,
PSPCL in
16022-
Mr. Sachin Mittal and Mr.Arnav Mittal, Advocate, for the
18438-
PSPCL in
CWP-28852
35
28852-2017 and connected others
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP
2022 and 2894 of 2023.
Mr. Sherbaz Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondents
in CWP-16568-2025.
Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the resp
14798-2021.
Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate for the respondents in
CWP-20791-2022.
Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia,
Advocate for respondent in CWP
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the respondent
CWPs-10731, 10793 and 16419 of 2017.
Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the respondent(s) in CWP
27030 to 27033 of 2017.
Mr. Inderpreet Singh with Ms. J.S. Virk, Advocate for
respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP
Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate for th
CWP Nos.18056, 25433, 25446, 25439, 25428, 23836, 23599,
25586, 25597, 27603 and 14539 of 2022 and 2564, 7043,
16020 and 21774 of 2023.
Mr. Hridyavans Singh Randhawa, Advocate with
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advoca
CWP-2390-2025.
Mr. Shivam Kapila, Advocate for Mr. Shreesh Kakkar,
Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL in CWPs
18405-2022
Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent in CWP
2016.
Ms. Mahima Dogra, Advocate
CWP-21459-2023.
Mr. Akshay Rawal, Advocate for respondents in CWP
2018.
Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate for the respondent(s)
CWP-2894-2023 & 19867-2021.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP-871
Mr. Sherbaz Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL
Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the respondent/BBMB in CWP
Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate for the respondents in
Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia,
Advocate for respondent in CWP-20-2024.
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL in
10731, 10793 and 16419 of 2017.
Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the respondent(s) in CWP
Mr. Inderpreet Singh with Ms. J.S. Virk, Advocate for
respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-18309-2022.
Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL in
CWP Nos.18056, 25433, 25446, 25439, 25428, 23836, 23599,
25586, 25597, 27603 and 14539 of 2022 and 2564, 7043,
Mr. Hridyavans Singh Randhawa, Advocate with
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents/PSPCL in
Mr. Shivam Kapila, Advocate for Mr. Shreesh Kakkar,
PSPCL in CWPs-13720-2023 and
Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-6820
Ms. Mahima Dogra, Advocate for respondent(s) No.1 and 2 in
Mr. Akshay Rawal, Advocate for respondents in CWP-24961
Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL in
2021.
871-
PSPCL
ondent/BBMB in CWP-
Mr. Rehat Bir Singh Mann, Advocate for the respondents in
Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia,
PCL in
Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the respondent(s) in CWP-
Mr. Inderpreet Singh with Ms. J.S. Virk, Advocate for
PSPCL in
CWP Nos.18056, 25433, 25446, 25439, 25428, 23836, 23599,
25586, 25597, 27603 and 14539 of 2022 and 2564, 7043,
Mr. Hridyavans Singh Randhawa, Advocate with
te for respondents/PSPCL in
Mr. Shivam Kapila, Advocate for Mr. Shreesh Kakkar,
2023 and
6820-
for respondent(s) No.1 and 2 in
24961-
PSPCL in
CWP-28852
36
28852-2017 and connected others
Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate for the respondent(s)
CWP-11974 & 17451 of 2017.
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent in CWP
20789- 2022.
Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Rawal,
Advocate for respondent-PSPCL in CWP
Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate for the
PSPCL in RA-CW-247-2017 in CWP
249-2017 in CWP-23798- 2015 & RA
24283-2015.
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in
CWP Nos.28850 and 27034 of 2017.
Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advoc
PSPCL in CWP-18418-2022 and CWP
Mr. H.S. Baidwan, Advocate for respondents
871-2022.
Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent(s)
CWPs-25434-2022, 25429-2022, 1906
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent(s)
CWP-35975-2019, 5934-2020 & 13577
Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Simrandeep Singh
Sandu, Advocate for the respondents
Nos.18435, 18438, 17348, 18176, 20759 of 2022.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents/PSPCL in
CWP-17641-2018.
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in
CWP-11975-2017.
Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh and Mr. Baltej Pal Singh Walia, Advocates
with Ms. Muskan Gill and Ms. Karishma Sharma, Advocates
for the respondents/PSPCL in CWP
2017, CWP-25722-2018, RA
2020, CWP-13237-2021, CWP
CWP-8181-2019, CWP-34514
CWP-5668-2021.
Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL i
11974 & 17451 of 2017.
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent in CWP
Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Rawal,
PSPCL in CWP-11974 of 2017.
Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent(s)
2017 in CWP-19952-2015, RA-CW
2015 & RA-CW-251-2017 in CWP
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in
CWP Nos.28850 and 27034 of 2017.
Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the respondent(s)
2022 and CWP-28852-2017.
Mr. H.S. Baidwan, Advocate for respondents-PSPCL in CWP
Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL in
2022, 1906-2023 and 19986-2023.
Arav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL in
2020 & 13577-2021.
Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Simrandeep Singh
Sandu, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL in CWP
Nos.18435, 18438, 17348, 18176, 20759 of 2022.
er Singh, Advocate, for respondents/PSPCL in
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in
Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh and Mr. Baltej Pal Singh Walia, Advocates
with Ms. Muskan Gill and Ms. Karishma Sharma, Advocates
or the respondents/PSPCL in CWP-28852-2017, CWP-28851
2018, RA-CWP-288-2018, CWP-13731
2021, CWP-8183-2019, CWP-8171- 2019,
34514-2019, CWP-23040-2018 and
PSPCL in
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-
Ms. Promila Nain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Rawal,
respondent(s)-
CW-
2017 in CWP-
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in
ate for the respondent(s)-
PSPCL in CWP-
PSPCL in
PSPCL in
Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Simrandeep Singh
PSPCL in CWP
er Singh, Advocate, for respondents/PSPCL in
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in
Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh and Mr. Baltej Pal Singh Walia, Advocates
with Ms. Muskan Gill and Ms. Karishma Sharma, Advocates
28851-
13731-
2019,
2018 and
CWP-28852
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
1.
as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity,
the facts are taken from
2.
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction
in the nature of
promotional increment(s) to the petitioner, after completion of his 23 years
of regular service in view
Department from time to time as well as in view of the judgments passed by
this Court in number of cases and further, the petitioner is also entitled for
the release of interest @12% from the date when it became due
realization.
3.
regards to the entitlement of the petitioner(s) to 3
on completion of 23 years of service.
CONTENTIONS
4.
issue raised in the present writ petition(s) is no more
been examined this Court on several occasions. Firstly, the circulars dated
23.04.1990, 28.07.2000 and 18.11.2011
for the first time in
37
28852-2017 and connected others
HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of the above
as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity,
the facts are taken from CWP-28852-2017.
The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of
promotional increment(s) to the petitioner, after completion of his 23 years
of regular service in view of instructions issued by the respondent
Department from time to time as well as in view of the judgments passed by
this Court in number of cases and further, the petitioner is also entitled for
the release of interest @12% from the date when it became due
realization.
The issue involved in the instant bunch of 128 petitions is with
regards to the entitlement of the petitioner(s) to 3
on completion of 23 years of service.
CONTENTIONS
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
issue raised in the present writ petition(s) is no more
been examined this Court on several occasions. Firstly, the circulars dated
23.04.1990, 28.07.2000 and 18.11.2011 have come into effect. This Court
for the first time in CWP-16737-2011 and connected matter, titled as Om
This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions
as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity,
.
The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to grant the benefit of
promotional increment(s) to the petitioner, after completion of his 23 years
of instructions issued by the respondent
Department from time to time as well as in view of the judgments passed by
this Court in number of cases and further, the petitioner is also entitled for
the release of interest @12% from the date when it became due till its
The issue involved in the instant bunch of 128 petitions is with
regards to the entitlement of the petitioner(s) to 3
rd
promotional increment
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that the
issue raised in the present writ petition(s) is no more res integra and has
been examined this Court on several occasions. Firstly, the circulars dated
have come into effect. This Court
2011 and connected matter, titled as Om
mentioned writ petitions
as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity,
The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to grant the benefit of
promotional increment(s) to the petitioner, after completion of his 23 years
of instructions issued by the respondent-
Department from time to time as well as in view of the judgments passed by
this Court in number of cases and further, the petitioner is also entitled for
till its
The issue involved in the instant bunch of 128 petitions is with
promotional increment
contends that the
and has
been examined this Court on several occasions. Firstly, the circulars dated
have come into effect. This Court
2011 and connected matter, titled as Om
CWP-28852
Parkash Dua Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others,
14.12.2015 (Annexure P
situated employee Sh. Om Parkash Dua in the light of the aforementioned
circulars and allowed the writ petitions of the petitioner(s) therein.
5.
Department in view of clause (iii) of the circular dated
it has been mentioned that employees should not have been placed in a scale
which is higher than the scale of next higher post, it is submitted that a
clarification was issued on 26.02.2007 by the Government of Punjab to the
extent that
would be entitled for the increment on completion of requisite number of
years. Moreover, the Board of Directors have taken a decision in view of the
letter dated 09.11.1999 (Annexure P
granted the benefit of 9/16 years of promotional scale, he is entitled for grant
of advance promotional increment on completion of 23 years.
6.
than the scale
increment(s) on completion of 23 years. However, the respondent
department has been blowing hot and cold by withdrawing the feature No.7
and 8 with regards to clearance of departmental examination vi
dated 17.03.2010 and thereafter again implementing it. Ultimately, in the
year 2018 all erstwhile conditions imposed for availing the benefit of
advance promotional increments has been removed w.e.f. 01.10.2018.
38
28852-2017 and connected others
Parkash Dua Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others,
14.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), had considered the case of an identically
mployee Sh. Om Parkash Dua in the light of the aforementioned
circulars and allowed the writ petitions of the petitioner(s) therein.
Furthermore, with regards to the objection of the respondent
Department in view of clause (iii) of the circular dated
it has been mentioned that employees should not have been placed in a scale
which is higher than the scale of next higher post, it is submitted that a
clarification was issued on 26.02.2007 by the Government of Punjab to the
even if the employee has been placed in a higher pay scale, he
would be entitled for the increment on completion of requisite number of
years. Moreover, the Board of Directors have taken a decision in view of the
letter dated 09.11.1999 (Annexure P-2) tha
granted the benefit of 9/16 years of promotional scale, he is entitled for grant
of advance promotional increment on completion of 23 years.
As such, an employee, even if placed in a scale which is higher
than the scale of his next higher post, is entitled to the promotional
increment(s) on completion of 23 years. However, the respondent
department has been blowing hot and cold by withdrawing the feature No.7
and 8 with regards to clearance of departmental examination vi
dated 17.03.2010 and thereafter again implementing it. Ultimately, in the
year 2018 all erstwhile conditions imposed for availing the benefit of
advance promotional increments has been removed w.e.f. 01.10.2018.
Parkash Dua Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, decided on
6), had considered the case of an identically
mployee Sh. Om Parkash Dua in the light of the aforementioned
circulars and allowed the writ petitions of the petitioner(s) therein.
Furthermore, with regards to the objection of the respondent
Department in view of clause (iii) of the circular dated 28.07.2000 wherein
it has been mentioned that employees should not have been placed in a scale
which is higher than the scale of next higher post, it is submitted that a
clarification was issued on 26.02.2007 by the Government of Punjab to the
even if the employee has been placed in a higher pay scale, he
would be entitled for the increment on completion of requisite number of
years. Moreover, the Board of Directors have taken a decision in view of the
2) that even if an employee has been
granted the benefit of 9/16 years of promotional scale, he is entitled for grant
of advance promotional increment on completion of 23 years.
As such, an employee, even if placed in a scale which is higher
of his next higher post, is entitled to the promotional
increment(s) on completion of 23 years. However, the respondent
department has been blowing hot and cold by withdrawing the feature No.7
and 8 with regards to clearance of departmental examination vide order
dated 17.03.2010 and thereafter again implementing it. Ultimately, in the
year 2018 all erstwhile conditions imposed for availing the benefit of
advance promotional increments has been removed w.e.f. 01.10.2018.
decided on
6), had considered the case of an identically
mployee Sh. Om Parkash Dua in the light of the aforementioned
Furthermore, with regards to the objection of the respondent-
28.07.2000 wherein
it has been mentioned that employees should not have been placed in a scale
which is higher than the scale of next higher post, it is submitted that a
clarification was issued on 26.02.2007 by the Government of Punjab to the
even if the employee has been placed in a higher pay scale, he
would be entitled for the increment on completion of requisite number of
years. Moreover, the Board of Directors have taken a decision in view of the
t even if an employee has been
granted the benefit of 9/16 years of promotional scale, he is entitled for grant
As such, an employee, even if placed in a scale which is higher
of his next higher post, is entitled to the promotional
increment(s) on completion of 23 years. However, the respondent-
department has been blowing hot and cold by withdrawing the feature No.7
de order
dated 17.03.2010 and thereafter again implementing it. Ultimately, in the
year 2018 all erstwhile conditions imposed for availing the benefit of
CWP-28852
7.
with CWP-20139
Corporation Ltd. and others
Division Bench in
State Power Corporation Limited Versu Nirmala Rani
22.09.2016, has upheld the order passed by the coordinate Bench. Yet
another round of litigation in the year 2016 came before this Court bearing
CWP-10994
Corporation Limited and another,
the same terms of earlier judgments mentioned hereinabove. Furthermore,
information was sought from the respondent(s) and it was intimated vide
letter 11.05.2015 (Annexure P
been implemented in a number of cases.
8.
judgment passed by this Court in
Vs. Punjab
(Annexure P
the same was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Annexure P
Further, this Court in
State Power Corporation Ltd and others
P-15), has allowed the writ petition by granting the promotional increment.
Learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court on the following
39
28852-2017 and connected others
In similar circumstances another bunch of writ petitions along
20139-2015, titled as Chiman Singh Versus Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on 29.02.2016, was allowed and the
Division Bench in LPA-997-2016 and connected cases
State Power Corporation Limited Versu Nirmala Rani
22.09.2016, has upheld the order passed by the coordinate Bench. Yet
another round of litigation in the year 2016 came before this Court bearing
10994-2016, titled as Pritpal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and another, which was disposed of on 20.12.2016 in
the same terms of earlier judgments mentioned hereinabove. Furthermore,
information was sought from the respondent(s) and it was intimated vide
11.05.2015 (Annexure P-11) that the order passed by this Court has
been implemented in a number of cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the
judgment passed by this Court in CWP-10808
Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others
(Annexure P-13) which was allowed along with other bunch of petitions and
the same was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Annexure P
Further, this Court in CWP-16048-2013, titled as
State Power Corporation Ltd and others, decided on 11.08.2014 (Annexure
15), has allowed the writ petition by granting the promotional increment.
Learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court on the following
In similar circumstances another bunch of writ petitions along
Chiman Singh Versus Punjab State Power
, decided on 29.02.2016, was allowed and the
2016 and connected cases, titled as Punjab
State Power Corporation Limited Versu Nirmala Rani, decided on
22.09.2016, has upheld the order passed by the coordinate Bench. Yet
another round of litigation in the year 2016 came before this Court bearing
pal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power
which was disposed of on 20.12.2016 in
the same terms of earlier judgments mentioned hereinabove. Furthermore,
information was sought from the respondent(s) and it was intimated vide
11) that the order passed by this Court has
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the
10808-2007, titled as Paul Singh
State Electricity Board and others, decided on 24.01.2012
13) which was allowed along with other bunch of petitions and
the same was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Annexure P-14).
, titled as Arjan Dass Vs. Punjab
, decided on 11.08.2014 (Annexure
15), has allowed the writ petition by granting the promotional increment.
Learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court on the following
In similar circumstances another bunch of writ petitions along
Chiman Singh Versus Punjab State Power
, decided on 29.02.2016, was allowed and the
Punjab
, decided on
22.09.2016, has upheld the order passed by the coordinate Bench. Yet
another round of litigation in the year 2016 came before this Court bearing
pal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power
which was disposed of on 20.12.2016 in
the same terms of earlier judgments mentioned hereinabove. Furthermore,
information was sought from the respondent(s) and it was intimated vide
11) that the order passed by this Court has
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the
Paul Singh
, decided on 24.01.2012
13) which was allowed along with other bunch of petitions and
14).
n Dass Vs. Punjab
, decided on 11.08.2014 (Annexure
15), has allowed the writ petition by granting the promotional increment.
Learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court on the following
CWP-28852
judgments in whi
and their petitions were allowed:
a. CWP No.7538 of 2014 and the connected matters,
Tarsem Lal Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and
others
b. CWP No.17100 of 2016 and the connected matters,
Paramjit Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
and others,
c. LPA No.1849 of 2018
Limited and others vs
(Annexure P
9.
order dated 28.04.1998 (Annexure P
passing the departmental account examination for promotion JE
and LDC to UDC has been waived off with the stipulation that incumbent
has completed the 50 years of age. He also relies upon the office orders
dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P
18.08.1983 (Annexure P
who were under matric have been granted the benefit of 23 years of advance
promotional increment and denial of the similar relief to the petitioner would
be arbitrary. As such, the respondent
deserving employee to approach this Court even though similar reliefs have
been granted to numerous other identical circumstanced employees and
40
28852-2017 and connected others
judgments in which similarly situated employees have approached this Court
and their petitions were allowed:-
CWP No.7538 of 2014 and the connected matters,
Tarsem Lal Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and
others, decided on 04.02.2015 (Annexure P
CWP No.17100 of 2016 and the connected matters,
Paramjit Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
and others, decided on 27.03.2018
LPA No.1849 of 2018 titled as Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited and others vs Gurdeep Singh,
(Annexure P-19).
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon office
order dated 28.04.1998 (Annexure P-22) and submits that the condition of
passing the departmental account examination for promotion JE
and LDC to UDC has been waived off with the stipulation that incumbent
has completed the 50 years of age. He also relies upon the office orders
dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P-23), 20.09.2019 (Annexure P
18.08.1983 (Annexure P-25) and submits that similarly situated foreman
who were under matric have been granted the benefit of 23 years of advance
promotional increment and denial of the similar relief to the petitioner would
be arbitrary. As such, the respondent-Corporation is compelling eve
deserving employee to approach this Court even though similar reliefs have
been granted to numerous other identical circumstanced employees and
ch similarly situated employees have approached this Court
CWP No.7538 of 2014 and the connected matters, titled as
Tarsem Lal Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and
, decided on 04.02.2015 (Annexure P-16).
CWP No.17100 of 2016 and the connected matters, titled as
Paramjit Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
decided on 27.03.2018 (Annexure P-18).
Punjab State Power Corporation
Gurdeep Singh, decided on 19.03.2019
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon office
22) and submits that the condition of
passing the departmental account examination for promotion JE-II to JE-
and LDC to UDC has been waived off with the stipulation that incumbent
has completed the 50 years of age. He also relies upon the office orders
23), 20.09.2019 (Annexure P-24) and
ts that similarly situated foreman
who were under matric have been granted the benefit of 23 years of advance
promotional increment and denial of the similar relief to the petitioner would
Corporation is compelling every
deserving employee to approach this Court even though similar reliefs have
been granted to numerous other identical circumstanced employees and
ch similarly situated employees have approached this Court
titled as
Tarsem Lal Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and
titled as
Paramjit Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Punjab State Power Corporation
decided on 19.03.2019
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon office
22) and submits that the condition of
-I
and LDC to UDC has been waived off with the stipulation that incumbent
has completed the 50 years of age. He also relies upon the office orders
24) and
ts that similarly situated foreman
who were under matric have been granted the benefit of 23 years of advance
promotional increment and denial of the similar relief to the petitioner would
ry
deserving employee to approach this Court even though similar reliefs have
been granted to numerous other identical circumstanced employees and
CWP-28852
raising up an issue which already stands settled by this Court is against
public policy and the principle of
10.
submits that the claims of the petitioners must be examined in light of the
applicable circulars, as promotional increments were extended solely on the
basis of these executi
the statutory service rules. It is contended that the method by which
promotional increments were granted has a direct bearing on entitlement,
and such benefits cannot be extended to employees who do not
eligibility criteria prescribed therein, particularly the circular issued in 2011,
which governs the cases of the majority of the petitioners. He further relies
upon the judgment passed by this Court in
State Power
22.09.2016 and submits that this Court has observed that the deletion of
feature No.7 and 8 would be valid prospectively.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
11.
parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. At this stage,
it may be profitable to refer to the principle of
commands that the decision of the competent Co
promote predictability and consistency in the law. Limiting the scope of
application of judgments by categorising them as
the constitutional goal of equality and paves way for further litigation,
41
28852-2017 and connected others
raising up an issue which already stands settled by this Court is against
public policy and the principle of state exigency.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the claims of the petitioners must be examined in light of the
applicable circulars, as promotional increments were extended solely on the
basis of these executive circulars without any corresponding amendment in
the statutory service rules. It is contended that the method by which
promotional increments were granted has a direct bearing on entitlement,
and such benefits cannot be extended to employees who do not
eligibility criteria prescribed therein, particularly the circular issued in 2011,
which governs the cases of the majority of the petitioners. He further relies
upon the judgment passed by this Court in
State Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirmala Rani,
22.09.2016 and submits that this Court has observed that the deletion of
feature No.7 and 8 would be valid prospectively.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. At this stage,
it may be profitable to refer to the principle of
commands that the decision of the competent Co
promote predictability and consistency in the law. Limiting the scope of
application of judgments by categorising them as
the constitutional goal of equality and paves way for further litigation,
raising up an issue which already stands settled by this Court is against
state exigency.
learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation
submits that the claims of the petitioners must be examined in light of the
applicable circulars, as promotional increments were extended solely on the
ve circulars without any corresponding amendment in
the statutory service rules. It is contended that the method by which
promotional increments were granted has a direct bearing on entitlement,
and such benefits cannot be extended to employees who do not satisfy the
eligibility criteria prescribed therein, particularly the circular issued in 2011,
which governs the cases of the majority of the petitioners. He further relies
upon the judgment passed by this Court in LPA-997-2016 titled as Punjab
Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirmala Rani, decided on
22.09.2016 and submits that this Court has observed that the deletion of
feature No.7 and 8 would be valid prospectively.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. At this stage,
it may be profitable to refer to the principle of stare decisis which
commands that the decision of the competent Court must be honoured to
promote predictability and consistency in the law. Limiting the scope of
application of judgments by categorising them as jus in personum defeats
the constitutional goal of equality and paves way for further litigation,
raising up an issue which already stands settled by this Court is against
Corporation
submits that the claims of the petitioners must be examined in light of the
applicable circulars, as promotional increments were extended solely on the
ve circulars without any corresponding amendment in
the statutory service rules. It is contended that the method by which
promotional increments were granted has a direct bearing on entitlement,
satisfy the
eligibility criteria prescribed therein, particularly the circular issued in 2011,
which governs the cases of the majority of the petitioners. He further relies
Punjab
decided on
22.09.2016 and submits that this Court has observed that the deletion of
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. At this stage,
which
urt must be honoured to
promote predictability and consistency in the law. Limiting the scope of
defeats
the constitutional goal of equality and paves way for further litigation,
CWP-28852
thereby burd
settled. Rather, it would be in the interest of justice, fairness and
administrative efficacy to allow judgments rendered to have broader
application. Moreover, the legal maxim
dirimere calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions
rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this
Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent Court has granted a
certain relief to
counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts to have the same
implemented. In the matter at hand, the entitlements of the petitioners have
been categorically declared, as such there is n
judgments rendered by this Court narrowly.
12.
has notified the Punjab Dispute Resolution & Litigation Policy, 2020
(hereinafter ‘Litigation Policy’), which is a compre
established with the primary objective of transforming the State Government
from a pervasive and often inefficient litigant into a responsible and strategic
participant in the justice system. Its core aim is to tackle the immense
pendency and backlog of cases in courts by drastically reducing the volume
of unnecessary litigation involving the State and its entities. The policy
seeks to achieve this by creating conditions that minimize the institution of
new cases, curb delays in ongoing li
disputes at the administrative level or through Alternative Dispute
42
28852-2017 and connected others
thereby burdening the judicial system with matters that already stand duly
settled. Rather, it would be in the interest of justice, fairness and
administrative efficacy to allow judgments rendered to have broader
application. Moreover, the legal maxim
calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions
rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this
Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent Court has granted a
certain relief to one set of employees, they as well as their similarly
counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts to have the same
implemented. In the matter at hand, the entitlements of the petitioners have
been categorically declared, as such there is n
judgments rendered by this Court narrowly.
Vide notification dated 25.06.2020, the Government of Punjab
has notified the Punjab Dispute Resolution & Litigation Policy, 2020
(hereinafter ‘Litigation Policy’), which is a compre
established with the primary objective of transforming the State Government
from a pervasive and often inefficient litigant into a responsible and strategic
participant in the justice system. Its core aim is to tackle the immense
and backlog of cases in courts by drastically reducing the volume
of unnecessary litigation involving the State and its entities. The policy
seeks to achieve this by creating conditions that minimize the institution of
new cases, curb delays in ongoing litigation, and proactively resolve
disputes at the administrative level or through Alternative Dispute
ening the judicial system with matters that already stand duly
settled. Rather, it would be in the interest of justice, fairness and
administrative efficacy to allow judgments rendered to have broader
application. Moreover, the legal maxim boni judics est causas litium
calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions
rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this
Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent Court has granted a
one set of employees, they as well as their similarly-situated
counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts to have the same
implemented. In the matter at hand, the entitlements of the petitioners have
been categorically declared, as such there is no scope to even read the
judgments rendered by this Court narrowly.
Vide notification dated 25.06.2020, the Government of Punjab
has notified the Punjab Dispute Resolution & Litigation Policy, 2020
(hereinafter ‘Litigation Policy’), which is a comprehensive framework
established with the primary objective of transforming the State Government
from a pervasive and often inefficient litigant into a responsible and strategic
participant in the justice system. Its core aim is to tackle the immense
and backlog of cases in courts by drastically reducing the volume
of unnecessary litigation involving the State and its entities. The policy
seeks to achieve this by creating conditions that minimize the institution of
tigation, and proactively resolve
disputes at the administrative level or through Alternative Dispute
ening the judicial system with matters that already stand duly
settled. Rather, it would be in the interest of justice, fairness and
administrative efficacy to allow judgments rendered to have broader
causas litium
calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions
rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this
Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent Court has granted a
situated
counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts to have the same
implemented. In the matter at hand, the entitlements of the petitioners have
o scope to even read the
Vide notification dated 25.06.2020, the Government of Punjab
has notified the Punjab Dispute Resolution & Litigation Policy, 2020
hensive framework
established with the primary objective of transforming the State Government
from a pervasive and often inefficient litigant into a responsible and strategic
participant in the justice system. Its core aim is to tackle the immense
and backlog of cases in courts by drastically reducing the volume
of unnecessary litigation involving the State and its entities. The policy
seeks to achieve this by creating conditions that minimize the institution of
tigation, and proactively resolve
disputes at the administrative level or through Alternative Dispute
CWP-28852
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration and Lok Adalats, thereby
preventing them from escalating to the courts in the first instance.
13.
institutional architecture and a set of strategic directives. It establishes a
multi-tiered monitoring structure, including Departmental Nodal Officers,
District-Level Committees, Department Committees o
and a high-
rigorous oversight and accountability. Key features include explicit
guidelines to avoid frivolous litigation, such as not filing appeals in petty
financial matters o
passing of well
Furthermore, the policy enforces strict timelines for responding to legal
notices and court orders, promotes the use of a digital
system for transparency, and centralizes the strategy for critical cases under
the Advocate General. The profound importance of this policy lies in its
potential to decongest the judiciary, conserve public resources spent on
avoidable legal
administrative action, and ultimately enhance the public’s access to justice
by providing quicker and more amicable resolutions.
14.
Court in CWP No. 7727 of 2025
and others
Punjab and others
43
28852-2017 and connected others
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration and Lok Adalats, thereby
preventing them from escalating to the courts in the first instance.
To operationalize this vision, the policy outlines a detailed
institutional architecture and a set of strategic directives. It establishes a
tiered monitoring structure, including Departmental Nodal Officers,
Level Committees, Department Committees o
-powered Empowered Committee on Litigation (ECL), to ensure
rigorous oversight and accountability. Key features include explicit
guidelines to avoid frivolous litigation, such as not filing appeals in petty
financial matters or individual service grievances, and mandating the
passing of well-reasoned speaking orders to prevent disputes from arising.
Furthermore, the policy enforces strict timelines for responding to legal
notices and court orders, promotes the use of a digital
system for transparency, and centralizes the strategy for critical cases under
the Advocate General. The profound importance of this policy lies in its
potential to decongest the judiciary, conserve public resources spent on
avoidable legal battles, foster good governance through timely and fair
administrative action, and ultimately enhance the public’s access to justice
by providing quicker and more amicable resolutions.
In compliance with the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this
CWP No. 7727 of 2025 titled Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab
and CWP No. 7728 of 2025
Punjab and others, the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 16.04.2025,
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration and Lok Adalats, thereby
preventing them from escalating to the courts in the first instance.
ionalize this vision, the policy outlines a detailed
institutional architecture and a set of strategic directives. It establishes a
tiered monitoring structure, including Departmental Nodal Officers,
Level Committees, Department Committees on Litigation (DCL),
powered Empowered Committee on Litigation (ECL), to ensure
rigorous oversight and accountability. Key features include explicit
guidelines to avoid frivolous litigation, such as not filing appeals in petty
r individual service grievances, and mandating the
reasoned speaking orders to prevent disputes from arising.
Furthermore, the policy enforces strict timelines for responding to legal
notices and court orders, promotes the use of a digital case management
system for transparency, and centralizes the strategy for critical cases under
the Advocate General. The profound importance of this policy lies in its
potential to decongest the judiciary, conserve public resources spent on
battles, foster good governance through timely and fair
administrative action, and ultimately enhance the public’s access to justice
by providing quicker and more amicable resolutions.
In compliance with the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this
Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab
titled Major Singh vs. State of
, the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 16.04.2025,
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration and Lok Adalats, thereby
ionalize this vision, the policy outlines a detailed
institutional architecture and a set of strategic directives. It establishes a
tiered monitoring structure, including Departmental Nodal Officers,
n Litigation (DCL),
powered Empowered Committee on Litigation (ECL), to ensure
rigorous oversight and accountability. Key features include explicit
guidelines to avoid frivolous litigation, such as not filing appeals in petty
r individual service grievances, and mandating the
reasoned speaking orders to prevent disputes from arising.
Furthermore, the policy enforces strict timelines for responding to legal
case management
system for transparency, and centralizes the strategy for critical cases under
the Advocate General. The profound importance of this policy lies in its
potential to decongest the judiciary, conserve public resources spent on
battles, foster good governance through timely and fair
administrative action, and ultimately enhance the public’s access to justice
In compliance with the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this
Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab
Major Singh vs. State of
, the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 16.04.2025,
CWP-28852
has constituted an Empowered Committee to addr
raised by the employees.
15.
following terms:
a. The petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations
setting out their respective claims before the Empowered Committee
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
b. The Empowered Committee shall afford a fai
to the petitioners and shall adjudicate their claims by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months,
keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove.
c. It is further clarified that any other s
has not approached this Court, shall also be at liberty to submit a
representation before the Empowered Committee, and such
representation(s) shall be decided by the Committee in a time
manner in accordance with law.
16.
involved herein has travelled to this Court on multiple occasions, and has
even engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One is compelled
to ask: what purpose does the Litigation Pol
being conclusively settled by judicial pronouncements, are permitted to
endlessly spiral back into litigation until they once again reach the highest
44
28852-2017 and connected others
has constituted an Empowered Committee to addr
raised by the employees.
In view of the above, the petition(s) are disposed of in the
following terms:
The petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations
setting out their respective claims before the Empowered Committee
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
The Empowered Committee shall afford a fai
to the petitioners and shall adjudicate their claims by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months,
keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove.
It is further clarified that any other s
has not approached this Court, shall also be at liberty to submit a
representation before the Empowered Committee, and such
representation(s) shall be decided by the Committee in a time
manner in accordance with law.
This Court is constrained to observe that the controversy
involved herein has travelled to this Court on multiple occasions, and has
even engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One is compelled
to ask: what purpose does the Litigation Pol
being conclusively settled by judicial pronouncements, are permitted to
endlessly spiral back into litigation until they once again reach the highest
has constituted an Empowered Committee to address the various issues
the petition(s) are disposed of in the
The petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations
setting out their respective claims before the Empowered Committee
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
The Empowered Committee shall afford a fair opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners and shall adjudicate their claims by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months,
keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove.
It is further clarified that any other similarly situated employee, who
has not approached this Court, shall also be at liberty to submit a
representation before the Empowered Committee, and such
representation(s) shall be decided by the Committee in a time-bound
This Court is constrained to observe that the controversy
involved herein has travelled to this Court on multiple occasions, and has
even engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One is compelled
to ask: what purpose does the Litigation Policy serve if matters, despite
being conclusively settled by judicial pronouncements, are permitted to
endlessly spiral back into litigation until they once again reach the highest
ess the various issues
the petition(s) are disposed of in the
The petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations
setting out their respective claims before the Empowered Committee
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
r opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners and shall adjudicate their claims by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months,
imilarly situated employee, who
has not approached this Court, shall also be at liberty to submit a
representation before the Empowered Committee, and such
bound
This Court is constrained to observe that the controversy
involved herein has travelled to this Court on multiple occasions, and has
even engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One is compelled
icy serve if matters, despite
being conclusively settled by judicial pronouncements, are permitted to
endlessly spiral back into litigation until they once again reach the highest
CWP-28852
constitutional forum? Once the law on an issue stands crystalised,
compelling similarly situated employees to repeatedly invoke the writ
jurisdiction to secure identical reliefs is contrary to public policy and the
rule of law. The State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional
obligation to act fairly, promptly, and in goo
indifference and inertia in implementing Court directions has emerged as a
recurring concern; one that erodes public trust and burdens the justice
delivery system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored
that justice
and ultimately defeated. Passive resistance to judicial mandates reveals
institutional arrogance and a disregard for constitutional discipline. This
Court, therefore, refers the matters t
earnest hope that reasoned and lawful decisions shall be taken, ensuring that
the litigation is finally brought to an end.
17.
disposed of.
18.
cases.
October 30
P.C
45
28852-2017 and connected others
constitutional forum? Once the law on an issue stands crystalised,
g similarly situated employees to repeatedly invoke the writ
jurisdiction to secure identical reliefs is contrary to public policy and the
rule of law. The State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional
obligation to act fairly, promptly, and in goo
indifference and inertia in implementing Court directions has emerged as a
recurring concern; one that erodes public trust and burdens the justice
delivery system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored
that justice delayed is not merely justice denied, but justice diluted, deferred,
and ultimately defeated. Passive resistance to judicial mandates reveals
institutional arrogance and a disregard for constitutional discipline. This
Court, therefore, refers the matters to the Empowered Committee with
earnest hope that reasoned and lawful decisions shall be taken, ensuring that
the litigation is finally brought to an end.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file
30, 2025
Whether speaking/reasoned. :
Whether Reportable. :
constitutional forum? Once the law on an issue stands crystalised,
g similarly situated employees to repeatedly invoke the writ
jurisdiction to secure identical reliefs is contrary to public policy and the
rule of law. The State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional
obligation to act fairly, promptly, and in good faith. Administrative
indifference and inertia in implementing Court directions has emerged as a
recurring concern; one that erodes public trust and burdens the justice
delivery system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored
delayed is not merely justice denied, but justice diluted, deferred,
and ultimately defeated. Passive resistance to judicial mandates reveals
institutional arrogance and a disregard for constitutional discipline. This
o the Empowered Committee with
earnest hope that reasoned and lawful decisions shall be taken, ensuring that
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands
this order be placed on the files of connected
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Yes/No
constitutional forum? Once the law on an issue stands crystalised,
g similarly situated employees to repeatedly invoke the writ
jurisdiction to secure identical reliefs is contrary to public policy and the
rule of law. The State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional
d faith. Administrative
indifference and inertia in implementing Court directions has emerged as a
recurring concern; one that erodes public trust and burdens the justice
delivery system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored
delayed is not merely justice denied, but justice diluted, deferred,
and ultimately defeated. Passive resistance to judicial mandates reveals
institutional arrogance and a disregard for constitutional discipline. This
o the Empowered Committee with
earnest hope that reasoned and lawful decisions shall be taken, ensuring that
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands
of connected
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....