LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved On: 05.05.2025

Pronounced On: 16.05.2025

1. LPA-2032-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SARWAN RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

2. LPA-2073-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SOHAN SINGH

…..Respondent

3. LPA-2088-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SHANO DEVI

…..Respondent

4. LPA-2111-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TEHAL SINGH

…..Respondent

5. LPA-2112-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KULDEEP SINGH

…..Respondent

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -2-

6. LPA-2114-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

7. LPA-2115-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

8. LPA-2116-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SURINDER SINGH

…..Respondent

9. LPA-2133-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

10. LPA-2148-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

11. LPA-2149-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALVIR SINGH

…..Respondent

12. LPA-2150-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ……Appellants

Versus

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -3-

MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

13. LPA-2162-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

14. LPA-2163-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GURSEWAK SINGH

…..Respondent

15. LPA-2441-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

CHHINDA SINGH

…..Respondent

16. LPA-2442-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

17. LPA-2446-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TEJA SINGH

…..Respondent

18. LPA-2447-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -4-

JAGDISH KUMAR

…..Respondent

19. LPA-2448-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

DHIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

20. LPA-2449-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

21. LPA-2456-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KALA SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

22. LPA-2462-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

HARBANS KAUR AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

23. LPA-2465-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

24. LPA-2474-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BHAGA

…..Respondent

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -5-

25. LPA-2475-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

CHINDERPAL AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

26. LPA-2480-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TARLOCHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

27. LPA-2481-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TARSEM LAL AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

28. LPA-2482-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

29. LPA-2522-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

30. LPA-2177-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SARDARA SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

31. LPA-2179-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -6-

Versus

MALKAN SINGH

…..Respondent

32. LPA-2180-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SATPAL

…..Respondent

33. LPA-2184-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

34. LPA-2200-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

35. LPA-2203-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MUKHTIAR KHAN AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

36. LPA-2204-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

37. LPA-2205-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SHER SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -7-

38. LPA-2207-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

HARBANS KAUR

…..Respondent

39. LPA-2235-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMARJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

40. LPA-2236-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

OM PARKASH

…..Respondent

41. LPA-2237-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

HARI RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

42. LPA-2238-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

43. LPA-2239-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

44. LPA-2240-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -8-

……Appellants

Versus

HARJEET AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

45. LPA-2241-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KAKA RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

46. LPA-2246-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

NAJAR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

47. LPA-2247-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GAMDOOR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

48. LPA-2248-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALWINDER RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

49. LPA-2274-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AKHTAR KHAN

…..Respondent

50. LPA-2283-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

LACHHMAN SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -9-

51. LPA-2298-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BUDH RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

52. LPA-2299-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BHAGA AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

53. LPA-2301-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SALIM KUMAR

…..Respondent

54. LPA-2316-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

CHARNA AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

55. LPA-2317-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RAVI KUMAR SHARMA

…..Respondent

56. LPA-2319-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

57. LPA-2336-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -10-

Versus

MEJAR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

58. LPA-2337-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SOHAN SINGH

…..Respondent

59. LPA-2361-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

60. LPA-2362-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

61. LPA-2363-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

62. LPA-2364-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

VEERA SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

63. LPA-2366-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KASHMIRI LAL AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -11-

64. LPA-2367-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RANA SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

65. LPA-2400-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

66. LPA-2401-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

PAWAN AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

67. LPA-2402-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

68. LPA-2403-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JEET SINGH,DIED, LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

69. LPA-2405-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RAJ KUMARI AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

70. LPA-2406-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -12-

Versus

RAVI KUMAR AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

71. LPA-2407-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JITO AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

72. LPA-2408-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

NEETU SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

73. LPA-2409-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TARSEM LAL AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

74. LPA-2411-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALWANT SINGH

…..Respondent

75. LPA-2592-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RESHAM SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

76. LPA-2593-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SHER SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -13-

77. LPA-2594-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KULWANT SINGH

…..Respondent

78. LPA-2595-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMAR CHAND AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

79. LPA-2598-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

NISHAN SINGH

…..Respondent

80. LPA-2600-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GURPARTAP SINGH

…..Respondent

81. LPA-2601-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TILAK RAJ

…..Respondent

82. LPA-2602-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

83. LPA-2582-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -14-

……Appellants

Versus

GURPARTAP SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

84. LPA-2581-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KULDEEP SHARMA (died) Legal Heirs & Ors.

…..Respondents

85. LPA-2573-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMANPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

86. LPA-2574-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KARNAIL SINGH

…..Respondent

87. LPA-2578-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SHAM LAL AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

88. LPA-2577-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMRIK SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

89. LPA-2555-2024

MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -15-

90. LPA-2560-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

HARBANS LAL AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

91. LPA-2561-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KULDEEP SHARMA

…..Respondent

92. LPA-2565-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MIT SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

93. LPA-2545-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

TARLOK SINGH

…..Respondent

94. LPA-2591-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SARABJEET KAUR AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

95. LPA-2604-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GURMAIL SINGH

…..Respondent

96. LPA-2576-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -16-

Versus

BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

97. LPA-2684-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BHAJAN LAL

…..Respondent

98. LPA-2617-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

99. LPA-2628-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MAHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

100. LPA-2630-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMAR NATH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

101. LPA-2631-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALBIR SINGH

…..Respondent

102. LPA-2627-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AVTAR SINGH

…..Respondent

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -17-

103. LPA-2773-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

104. LPA-2774-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SANT RAM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

105. LPA-2775-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

PREM KUMAR AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

106. LPA-2776-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

107. LPA-2778-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JOGINDER SINGH (THROUGH LRS)

…..Respondent

108. LPA-2780-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JAGAT RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

109. LPA-2750-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -18-

Versus

ROOP CHAND

…..Respondent

110. LPA-2736-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SITA RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

111. LPA-2737-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

112. LPA-2738-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JOGGA SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

113. LPA-2739-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

GIAN SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

114. LPA-2801-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

PREM CHAND AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

115. LPA-2802-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -19-

116. LPA-2862-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BUDH RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

117. LPA-2866-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

NISHAN SINGH

…..Respondent

118. LPA-2887-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MALKIAT SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

119. LPA-2947-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

SARABJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

120. LPA-2986-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BALHARI

…..Respondent

121. LPA-3021-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MALOOK SINGH AND ANOTHER

…..Respondents

122. LPA-2948-2024

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -20-

……Appellants

Versus

BHAJAN SINGH

…..Respondent

123. LPA-86-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JAGAT RAM AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

124. LPA-100-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JOG RAJ

…..Respondent

125. LPA-104-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

126. LPA-169-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

127. LPA-14-2025

THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

……Appellant

Versus

LAL CHAND AND ORS

…..Respondents

128. LPA-19-2025

THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

……Appellant

Versus

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -21-

DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

129. LPA-34-2025

THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

……Appellant

Versus

SADA SHIV YADAV AND ORS

…..Respondents

130. LPA-37-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

KULWANT SINGH SANDHU AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

131. LPA-128-2025

THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

……Appellant

Versus

JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

132. LPA-556-2025

THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

……Appellant

Versus

JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

133. LPA-301-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

134. LPA-337-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

BACHAN AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -22-

135. LPA-492-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

PREM CHAND AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

136. LPA-55-2025

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

……Appellants

Versus

VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

…..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

Present:- Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab,

(Through V.C.)

and Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab,

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the appellants

(in LPA Nos.14, 19, 34 128 & 556 of 2025).

Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. V.S. Mahal, Advocate;

Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate and

Mr. Vishesh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent(s)

(in LPA-2032, 2408, 2449, 2336, 2150, 2628, 2239,

2986, 2593, 2364, 2298, 2480, 2248, 2088 of 2024).

Mr. Baldev Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the respondent(s)

(in LPA-2401, 2780, 2363, 2409, 2032 of 2024 and

LPA 86 & 337 of 2025).

Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate

for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2577-2024).

Mr. Harbans Lal Sharma, Advocate and

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate

for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2073-2024).

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate

for the respondent(s)(in LPA 37 & 128 of 2023).

Mr. Vicky Arora, Advocate for

Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate

for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2274 of 2024).

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -23-

Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for

Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate

for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2801-2024 & 301-2025).

Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for

Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate

for appellant(s) (in LPA-2555-2024) and

for respondent (s) (in LPA-14, 19 & 34 of 2025).

Mr. Ashu Rana, Advocate

for respondent(s) (in LPA-2179-2024).

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

For the reasons given in the applications, the delay in re-

filing and filing of all the appeals, is condoned, subject to all just

exceptions.

2. This order shall dispose of the above noted batch of 136

intra Court appeals arising out of a common order dated 26.02.2024,

whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents (writ petitioners)

were disposed of with the following directions:-

i) This Court in the normal course

cannot ask State to create or sanction posts.

ii) The petitioners who had completed

service of 10 years by the end of December’

2006, either at present are in service or have

already retired, are entitled to regular post

and they cannot be denied regularization on

the ground of lack of sanctioned post or

minimum education qualification. To avoid

burden on State exchequer, it is clarified that

from the deemed date of their regularization,

they shall be entitled to minimum of pay

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -24-

scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay

till the date of this order and thereafter

regular pay scale.

iii) The petitioners who are still in service

but did not complete service of 10 years by

the end of December’ 2006 would form part

of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The

State, in view of long service of these

employees, would not insist for minimum

qualification. They from the date of

completing service of 10 years would be

entitled to minimum of pay scale plus

dearness allowance plus grade pay till the

date they are regularized in terms of 2023

Policy.

iv) The petitioners who did not complete

service of 10 years by the end of December’

2006 and during the pendency of present

litigation have superannuated or passed away

would be entitled to minimum of pay scale

plus dearness allowance and grade pay from

the date of completing service of 10 years till

the date of their retirement or death.

v) The petitioners who have already

been regularized by 31.12.2016 shall not be

entitled to any additional financial benefit

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -25-

because they are already getting higher

amount of salary for last couple of years.

vi) The respondent-State shall not be

liable to pay interest on arrears arising on

account of re-fixation of pay.

3. The aforesaid order was passed by noticing the facts in

CWP-19238-2013. As LPA-2032-2024 arises out of the aforesaid

CWP, the facts are taken from the said appeal.

4. The respondents (writ petitioners) filed the aforesaid writ

petitions before the learned Single Judge seeking a writ in the nature

of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their services

pursuant to the policy dated 18.03.2011. It was the case of the

respondents (writ petitioners) that they had completed service of 17-

18 years on the date of filing of the writ petition and from time to time

they had been transferred from one project to the other. It was further

claimed by them that they were being paid wages at the rates fixed by

the Deputy Commissioner.

5. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration

various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the rival

contentions of the parties, has disposed of the bunch of writ petitions,

as noticed above.

6. It may be noticed that when the appeal came up for

hearing on 12.11.2024, the learned State counsel had made a

statement that case of each of the employee was being assessed

individually and the matter had been placed before the Hon’ble Chief

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -26-

Minister of the State for final decision. The order dated 12.11.2024

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for appellant-State submits that

as of now recommendation has been made for

regularization of services of 75 respondents/writ

petitioners and in so far as 506 persons are

concerned, they are being considered to be

adjusted under the Policy for Welfare of Adhoc,

Contractual, Daily Wages, Work Charged and

Temporary Employees, 2023. Claims of other writ

petitioners in all writ petitions decided by a single

judgment dated 26.02.2024 are being individually

assessed. There are admittedly number of

petitioners in most of the writ petitions.

When asked as to whether the State still

wishes to pursue the appeal, it is submitted that

complete picture would be clear after the entire

exercise has been undertaken. Learned counsel for

appellants thus prays for an adjournment. At the

same time it is submitted that as contempt petitions

have been filed by some of writ petitioners,

therefore said proceedings may be kept in

abeyance for a period of four weeks.

It is brought to our notice that Mr. Ajoy

Sharma, IAS, Secretary Department of Forest and

Wildlife Preservation, Punjab, had appeared before

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -27-

learned Contempt Court on 18.10.2024 and stated

that in terms of order dated 26.02.2024 process

with regard to regularization of service of

petitioners is in progress and that needful shall be

done within a period of four months from that date.

Learned counsel for the State submits that

this process is likely to take another four weeks.

Matter has been placed before the Hon’ble Chief

Minister of the State and final decision is likely to

be taken. Keeping in view the above, these appeals

are adjourned for 20.01.2025. It is open to the

appellant-State to bring all these facts before

learned Contempt Court on the date fixed.

7. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on

18.03.2025, while noticing the contentions of the learned counsel for

the appellants, the following order was passed.

“ Learned counsel for appellant-State informs

that matter has still not been placed before the

Cabinet due to certain objections raised by

Department of Personnel. Learned counsel for

State further submits that about four weeks are

required to complete the entire process including

decision to be taken by the Cabinet.

Let a specific affidavit in regard to the time line be

filed by the Chief Secretary, Punjab, within next

two weeks.

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -28-

At request, adjourned to 05.05.2025.

Decision taken by Cabinet be placed on

record on or before the next date of hearing. No

further adjournment shall be afforded.

Keeping in view the above, learned

Contempt Court is requested to adjourn the

matter(s) as may be listed before it, beyond the

date fixed in these appeals subject to filing of

necessary affidavit by the Chief Secretary, Punjab

in the present matter.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the

files of above mentioned connected cases.

8. In compliance with the said order dated 05.05.2025, a

short reply by way of affidavit of under Secretary, Department of

Forest and Wildlife Preservation, Punjab was filed. The relevant part

of the said affidavit reads as under:-

“ 4. That in order to expedite the implementation

of the directions given by this Hon’ble Court, after

collating the records and necessary information, on

11.04.2025, a meeting under the chairmanship of

Chief Secretary Punjab was held, wherein,

following decision were taken:-

i) The Personnel Department,

Government of Punjab was directed to

take immediate action with regard to

regularization of 72 daily wage

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -29-

workers covered under the 18.03.2011

policy. In terms of this decision 24

petitioners in the present bunch of

cases would be the beneficiaries.

ii) With regard to granting security of

tenure to 506 daily wage workers in

terms of policy instructions of 2023,

the Personnel Department,

Government of Punjab was directed to

immediately put up the file for orders.

In terms of this decision, 101

petitioners in the present bunch of

cases would be the beneficiaries.

iii) With regard to the relaxation in

educational qualification and age limit

in the policy dated 16.05.2023 to

ensure security of tenure to 378

petitioners who did not fulfil the age

limit and educational qualification of

the policy dated 16.05.2023. It was

directed the case be put up before the

council of Ministers for taking

decision.

A copy of the minutes of meeting

dated 11.04.2025 is annexed herewith

as Annexure A-2.

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -30-

5. That insofar as decision taken in the

meeting dated 11.04.2025 on the issues no. 4

(i) and 4 (ii) is concerned, it is the Hon’ble

Chief Minister of Punjab, who has to grant the

final approval. The file with complete

data/information has been forwarded to his

office.

6. That further, insofar as the issue in

terms of paragraph 4 (iii) herein above is

concerned, the necessary decision has to be

taken by the Cabinet/Council of Ministers. In

this regard, the necessary Memorandum was

prepared. The complete file with

data/information has been forwarded to the

office of Hon’ble Chief Minister, who is the

competent authority to convene the meeting of

the Cabinet/Counsel of Ministers.

9. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned

counsel for the appellants has reiterated the stand taken in the

aforesaid affidavit stating that the matter is pending approval before

the Authorities as indicated in Paras 5 and 6 above.

10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petitions

were filed in the years 2003-2013. The length of service of the

respondents (writ petitioners) as indicated in the writ petitions, has not

been disputed by the appellants-State.

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -31-

11. We may also notice that sufficient opportunity has

already been granted to the appellant-authorities to consider the matter

and take appropriate action/decision pursuant to the judgment

delivered by the learned Single Judge. However, as noticed above, it

is still not forthcoming as to why the authorities are delaying the

matter. It is with this background that we have taken up the matters

for final disposal.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued

that while passing the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge

has lost sight of the settled judicial pronouncements that no person

can be regularized in the absence of any sanctioned post. It is further

argued that in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma

Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, it has been held that only those

employees, who were appointed against sanctioned posts, having

minimum educational qualification, could be considered for

regularization. It is further argued that the respondents (writ

petitioners) knew it very well at the time of their appointment that

they were not appointed against the sanctioned posts and, thus, they

have no vested right for regularization. It is yet further argued that the

respondents (writ petitioners) are working on daily wages and no

policy has been framed by the Government/State as regards the

regularization of the services of such daily wagers. Learned counsel

for the appellants contends that the concept of equal pay-equal work

cannot be made applicable to the respondents (writ petitioners) as they

were not working against the sanctioned posts. While assailing the

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -32-

judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is further argued that once the

respondents (writ petitioners) were not having the requisite

qualification for being considered for regularization under the policy,

the directions contained in Para 47 of the judgment of the learned

Single Judge are not sustainable. It is lastly argued that by issuing the

mandate, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants-State to

create the posts and regularize the respondents (writ petitioners),

which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, a prayer has

been made for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents (writ petitioners), while defending the judgment passed

by the learned Single Judge have vehemently contended that having

worked for more than 30 years, the respondents (writ petitioners)

cannot be denied the benefit of regularization merely on the basis of

the fact that they have been/are working on daily wages. It is further

argued that the stand of the appellants that the respondents (writ

petitioners) were not appointed against the sanctioned posts is not

tenable as it is settled principle of law that once an employee has been

appointed to discharge the duties and he continuous working as such

for years together, he is entitled to regularization of his services in

terms of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

particularly the one in Uma Devi’s case (supra).

14. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the

respondents (writ petitioners) that the stand of the appellants as

regards the matter being under active consideration of the authorities

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -33-

is nothing, but a tactic to delay and defeat the legal rights of the

respondents (writ petitioners). Accordingly, a prayer has been made

for dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants-State.

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

also gone through the paper book, including the impugned judgment.

16. In our opinion, the question that arises for consideration

by this Court is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in issuing

the directions contained in Para No.47 of the impugned judgment as

regards the regularization of the respondents (writ petitioners) and

their entitlement to the minimum of pay scale, plus dearness

allowance and the grade pay.

17. The learned Single Judge, after noticing various

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the Uma Devi’s

Case (supra) framed the following four questions for consideration:-

i) Whether this Court can direct the

respondents to create/sanction the posts?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to

be regularized/absorbed?

iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to

minimum of pay scale including dearness

allowance and grade pay?

iv) What relief can be granted to those

who after having rendered service of more

than 30 years, during the pendency of their

petitions have superannuated or passed

away?”

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -34-

18. Under question No.1, it has been observed by the learned

Single Judge that the appellants-State had started making

appointments on contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every

Departments and many teachers appointed on contract basis were

getting miniscule in comparison to the regularly appointed peons. It

was further observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of

exigencies had permitted appointment on contract basis, but not as a

routine practice. It was further observed that most of the respondents

(writ petitioners) were appointed much prior to the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) and the

regularization policy of the State issued in 2001 became

inconsequential post the said judgment. Thus, the State was duty

bound to consider all the employees, who had completed 10 years of

service without intervention by the end of 2006. Accordingly, it was

held that in the normal course, the Court cannot direct the State to

create or sanction the post.

19. Under question No.2, while elaborately discussing a

plethora of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that

once the employees had worked for a long period, it would be

unjustified to deny them benefit of regularization on the ground of not

possessing minimum qualification.

20. As regards question No.3, the respondents (writ

petitioners) were held entitled to the minimum pay scale plus dearness

allowance and grade pay provided they had completed 10 years of

service.

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -35-

21. As regards question No.4 it was held that the respondents

(writ petitioners) who had superannuated or passed away after

completing 20 years of service were entitled to the benefit of

minimum pay scale dearness allowance and grade pay for the period

beyond service of 10 years and the respondents (writ petitioners) who

had completed 10 years of service by 31.12.2006, but the records had

either been destroyed or lost by the appellants-State, it was held that if

such respondents (writ petitioners) were having documentary

evidence in respect of completion of 10 years of service by them, they

would be at liberty to submit available evidence to the appellants, who

while deciding the question of 10 years of service shall consider it.

22. After carefully and minutely going through the judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion

that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are perfectly

justified for the following reasons:-

(1) Once the appellants have not disputed the

length of service of the respondents (writ

petitioners), they cannot deny their legal right

for being considered or entitled to

regularization merely on the ground that they

have been working as such on daily wages.

Grant of any indulgence on such count would

amount to allowing the appellants to take

benefit of their dominion.

(2) Even if the respondents (writ petitioners) had

worked/have been working on daily wages, the

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -36-

fact remains that they had rendered their

services for the cause of the appellants and

gave/ have given their prime years in discharge

of such duties. Obviously they continued

working as such, because the duties/works

assigned to them were the requirements of the

appellants. The appellants cannot be allowed to

play according to their convenience. On the one

hand, they have availed the services of the

respondents (writ petitioners) and on the other,

they are denying them the benefit of

regularization, merely on the ground that the

respondents (writ petitioners) were working as

daily wages.

(3) The plea of the appellants that the respondents

(writ petitioners) were appointed as daily

wages, is not tenable for the reason that daily

wagers are only employed as a stop gap

arrangements for a limited period but in the

instant case, the employees have either worked

or been working for more than three decades

and therefore, they cannot be termed to be daily

wagers.

(4) It is not the case of the appellants that they

have not considered the cases of the other

similarly situated employees under different

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -37-

policies from time to time. That being the

position, the appellants cannot be heard saying

that the respondents (writ petitioners) cannot be

considered for regularization or they are not

entitled to such benefit for want of sanctioned

posts.

(5) It is settled in service jurisprudence that once

an employee has worked for a considerable

long period, his case is to be considered for

regularization by the State by framing

appropriate policy in terms of the Constitution

Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Uma Devi’s case (supra). The only caveat

which bars such regularization is that the

appointment to such posts must not be a back

door entry and rather, the same should be after

following the due procedure of law as provided

under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India.

(6) The deliberations on the part of the appellant-

State as regards the consideration of the cases

of the respondents (writ petitioners) on

individual basis is an exercise within their

domain in order to comply with the judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge, but as

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -38-

noticed above, the present batch of appeals

cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period.

(7) We may also deal with the argument raised by

the learned counsel for the appellants that the

directions given by the learned Single Judge in

Para No.47 amount to creation of the posts.

Suffice to say that before coming to the

conclusion as indicated in Para No.47 of the

judgment of the learned Single Judge, an

extensive discussion and issue wise findings

have been recorded by the learned Single Judge

and, thus, it has been held that though the Court

cannot ask the State to create or sanction

post(s), yet the respondents (writ petitioners)

cannot be denied the benefit of regularization

on the ground of lack of sanctioned post(s) or

minimum educational qualification. It may

further be observed that an employee, who has

rendered more than 30 years service under the

State, cannot be denied benefit of

regularization on the ground of lack of

requisite/minimum qualification. No doubt the

parameter of requisite educational qualification

is one of the conditions of the appointment to a

particular post, but when an employee

appointed against such posts has been working

LPA-2032-2024 (O&M) & other connected matters -39-

for more than three decades, denying him the

benefit of regularization on the ground of not

possessing minimum educational qualification

would be totally iniquitous.

23. In view of the above, while answering the question

framed above, it is held that the impugned judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge does not suffer from any patent illegality or

perversity. Consequently, the present batch of the appeals is hereby

dismissed.

24. No other point has been urged.

25. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

[ SUDHIR SINGH ]

JUDGE

[ ALOK JAIN ]

JUDGE

16.05.2025

himanshu

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No