Dismissed¶¶25

Balwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2026CWP/11180/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for want of prosecution; repeated non-appearance of petitioners despite telephonic intimation; writ of Mandamus for pay scale Rs.15000-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with consequential benefits; reliance on Adesh Kumar decision dated 22.07.2013 in CWP-10978-1993; speaking order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure R-1) rejecting claim, unchallenged; CWP-11180-2018; Balwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; decision January 21, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, as there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners on 21.01.2026 (nor on 13.01.2026), even though learned counsel for the petitioners had been informed telephonically of the date of hearing. ¶¶25

Balwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant them the pay scale of Rs.15000-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, with all consequential benefits, in view of the Coordinate Bench decision dated 22.07.2013 in CWP-10978-1993 (Adesh Kumar and others).

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The Court observed, in passing, that it appears either the grievance of the petitioners has already been redressed or they are no longer interested in pursuing the writ petition.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.) dismissed CWP-11180-2018, Balwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, for want of prosecution. By the writ petition the petitioners had sought a mandamus directing the respondents to grant them the pay scale of Rs.15000-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with all consequential benefits, in view of a Coordinate Bench decision dated 22.07.2013 in CWP-10978-1993 (Adesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others). In the order recorded at the previous hearing (13.01.2026), State counsel had stated that, in compliance with that decision, the petitioners' case was considered and rejected vide speaking order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure R-1), which the petitioners had not challenged till date. None appeared for the petitioners on 13.01.2026 or on 21.01.2026 despite telephonic intimation to their counsel; the Court observed that the grievance appeared already redressed or the petitioners no longer interested, and dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. The Court expressed no opinion on entitlement to the pay scale or on the maintainability point raised by State counsel.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

112

¶3

CWP-11180-2018 Date of Decision : January 21, 2026

¶4

BALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. -PETITIONERS

¶5

V/S

¶6

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

¶7

-RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: None for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

¶12

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

On the previous date of hearing, i.e. 13.01.2026, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶14

“The petitioners, by way of instant writ petition, pray for issuance of a writ of Mandamus upon the respondents to grant them pay scale of Rs.15000-2640, w.e.f. 01.01.1986, along with all the consequential benefits, in view of the decision dated 22.07.2013, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-10978-1993 (Adesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others).

¶15

At the outset, learned State counsel submits that, in compliance to the decision (supra), the case of the petitioners were considered and rejected, vide a speaking order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure R-1). He further submits that the said speaking order has not been challenged by the petitioners till date. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶16

Be that as it may, since none is present on behalf of the petitioners, purely, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned to 21.01.2026.

¶17

To be shown in the urgent list.

¶18

It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no

¶19

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.01.22 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶20

CWP-11180-2018

¶21

¶22

request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.

¶23

The Registry is directed to notify the next date of hearing to learned counsel for the petitioners.”

¶24

As per the office report, learned counsel for the petitioners was informed telephonically about today’s date of hearing. However, even today, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that either the grievance of the petitioners has already been redressed or they are no longer interested in pursuing the instant writ petition.

¶25

Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want

¶26

of prosecution .

¶27

(KULDEEP TIWARI) January 21, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶28

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.01.22 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Balwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Singh Vs District Magistrate Cum Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, Gurugram and Others

Satya Devi Vs Po It Cum Lc,,Faridabad

Ravinder Kumar and Others Vs Deputy General Manager Canara Bank and Others

Baldev Singh Vs Municipal Corporation,Amritsar

Director of Higher Education,Haryana Vs T.D.Ranjan

Major Singh Vs Appellate Tribunal Cum Additional Deputy Commissioner and Others