Aarti and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Aarti and Others Vs State of Punjab and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioners expeditiously, by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to them, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, and to convey the decision taken thereon to the petitioners.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to upgrade the petitioners' scale/grade pay from Rs.4200 to Rs.4400 (instead of granting 3% increment) with effect from the respective due dates of ACP (01.07.2010 to 30.10.2011) as per the 5th Pay Commission report and clarification letter dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure P-5), and to refix their pay accordingly.

Court's answer

The Court expressly refrained from going into the merits of the case at that stage, leaving the substantive question of grade-pay upgradation and pay refixation open.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of without deciding the merits, with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioners' legal notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, and to convey the decision taken thereon to the petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-13425-2026, decided 01.05.2026) filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Aarti and others against the State of Punjab and others, seeking a writ of mandamus to upgrade the petitioners' scale/grade pay from Rs.4200 to Rs.4400 (instead of granting 3% increment) with effect from the respective due dates of ACP (01.07.2010 to 30.10.2011) as per the 5th Pay Commission report and clarification letter dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure P-5), and to refix their pay. A legal notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) served by the petitioners was still pending. Held (Namit Kumar, J., oral): without going into the merits, the petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice expeditiously by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, preferably within 03 months from receipt of certified copy of the order, and to convey the decision to them. The substantive pay-upgradation claim was left undecided.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

129

CWP-13425-2026 Date of decision: 01.05.2026

Aarti and others

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present : Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to upgrade the scale/grade pay of the petitioners from Rs.4200 to Rs.4400 instead of granting 3% increment with effect from the respective due dates of ACP (01.07.2010 to 30.10.2011) as per the 5^th Pay Commission report and as per clarification letter dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure P-5) and to refix the pay accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for redressal of their grievances, the petitioners have also served a legal notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) upon the respondents which is still pending consideration. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied, if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said legal notice, by passing a speaking order, in a time bound manner.

VINAY 2026.05.05 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

-2-

CWP-13425-2026

Notice of motion.

On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioners expeditiously, by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to them, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereon shall be conveyed to the petitioners.

01.05.2026 Vinay		(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

VINAY 2026.05.05 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment