Dismissed¶18

Jagdish Chand and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2026CWP/14341/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-14341-2001 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 21.05.2026 by Namit Kumar, J. Writ petition (Articles 226/227) challenging withdrawal of proficiency step-up by order dated 20.09.1989 and instructions denying proficiency step-up in increment to those who forgo promotion; mandamus sought for additional increments on 8 and 18 years of satisfactory service. Dismissed for non-prosecution for want of representation despite service of notice; liberty to revive granted. Petitioners' counsel: Tribhawan Singla; State represented by Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. No cases cited, no quantum.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to revive the present petition in case any cause still survives. ¶18

Jagdish Chand and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-14341-2001 (O&M)

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-14341-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.05.2026

¶5

Jagdish Chand & another …Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab & others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

¶9

Present: - None for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab ***

¶11

NAMIT KUMAR, J . (Oral)

¶12

The petitioners have invoked t h e writ jurisdiction of this Cour t by filing th e instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution o f India seeki n g a writ of certiorari for qu a shing order dated 20.09.1989 , whereby proficiency step-up given to the petitioners was withdrawn and fo r quashing th e instructions issued by the re s pondents to the effect that th e person who had forgo promotion is not e n titled to proficiency step-up i n increment. F urther, seeking issuance of a w rit of mandamus directing th e respondents to grant the petitioners benef i ts of additional increments o n completion o f 8 and 18 years of satisfactor y service with all consequentia l benefits.

¶13

Since there was no representati o n on behalf of the petitioners o n the last date o f hearing i.e. 17.02.2026, notic e was ordered to be issued to th e petitioners f o r today and also to Mr. Tribha w an Singla, learned counsel fo r the petitioners. As per office report, notic e issued to the petitioners hav e

¶14

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.21 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CWP-14341-2001 (O&M)

¶16

(2)

¶17

been receive d back served. However, there i s no representation on behalf o f the petitione r s. It appears that the petitioner s are not interested to pursue th e present petit i on.

¶18