Sunil Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5905 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 December, 2025

CWP No. 36828 of 2025                     -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                                CWP No. 36828-2025 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision:10.12.2025
Sunil Kumar (Washerman)


                                                                   ....Petitioner

                                        vs.
State of Punjab and others

                                                                  ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present:     Mr. J.S.Mohri, Advocate
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

                           ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to grant him

minimum of regular pay scale including dearness allowance from the date of

his initial appointment till regularisation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of

petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Amrish Sharma

and others vs. State of Punjab and other, 2024 SCC Online P&H 1381

which stands upheld by Division Bench of this Court. Claim of petitioner is

further covered by judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar and others vs.

State of Punjab and others, 2024 SCC Online P&H 1028.

1 of 4

3. Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert

applicability of aforesaid judgments to the instant case.

4. The operative portion of judgment in Vinod Kumar and others

(Supra) reads as:-

"9. This Court vide judgment dated 26.02.2024 has decided a Bench of petitions involving identical issue in Civil Writ Petition No.19238 of 2013 titled as 'Amrish Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab and others'. In para 47 of the judgment conclusion has been recorded which is reproduced as below:-

"47. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court comes to conclusion as below:

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 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

2 of 4

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 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."

10. The petitioners are conceding that they may not be eligible under 2016 policy, however, they must be considered as per policy of 2023 because, they have already served for more than 25 years and it would be travesty of justice, if they are not considered as per 2023 policy. The respondent by 2023 policy has created a dying cadre. The petitioners are working as Class-IV employees and their work and conduct is satisfactory which is prima facie evident from the fact that they are uninterruptedly working since their appointment.

11. This Court finds that case of petitioners need to be considered in the light of 2023 policy and without insisting for minimum education qualification of 8th standard.

3 of 4

12. The petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider case of petitioners within 6 months from today in the light of above observations."

5. The instant petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of

aforesaid judgments. Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of with a

direction to respondent to consider case of petitioner within six months from

today in the light of Vinod Kumar (Supra).

6. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 10.12.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

4 of 4