Disposed

Sandeep Sharma and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CWP/29530/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide a legal notice filed by the petitioners regarding the re-fixing of pay at par with juniors. A speaking order must be passed after a hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus passed directing respondents to decide Annexure P-24 by passing a speaking order after hearing, within three months.

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

¶1

CWP-29530-2026 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(119) CWP-29530-2026 Date of Decision : 11.09.2026

¶4

Sandeep Sharma and others …Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Pu n jab and others ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶8

Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate a nd Mr. Amarjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Pu n jab.

¶10

¶11

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Through the instant petition, c ast under Article 226/227 of t h e Constitutio n of India, a prayer is made of i s suance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents, to r e-fix their pay at par with th e ir juniors, inc l uding respondents No.5 to 7, i n terms of the instructions issu e d by the Department of Finance, Govt. of P unjab, vide Annexures P-6, P - 7, P-12 and P-23, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petit i oners submits that the petitio n ers have made t he representation/legal notice d ated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P- 2 4), to responde n ts No.1 to 3. However, the sai d legal notice has not been decided, as on date, which propelled them to file the instant writ petition, seek i ng mandamus, upon the respondents concerne d , to take apt steps.

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

MANPREET SINGH 2026.09.12 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

¶16

CWP-29530-2026

¶17

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, P u njab, accepts notice on behal f of the respon d ents/State, and waives services . He fairly submits that he has no objection, i n case, a mandamus is passed u pon the authorities concerned, to decided the legal notice (supra).

¶18

In view of the above, since a b ona fide and innocuous prayer h as been made b y the petitioners, this Court de e ms it fit and appropriate to pa s s a mandamus u pon the competent respondent a mongst the respondents, to dec i de the legal n o tice dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-24), by passing a speak i ng order, after p roviding adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶19

The exercise (supra), shall be c arried out within a period of th r ee months, fro m the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Copy of this order be conveye d to the respondents, forthwith, f or

¶22

its complia n ce.

¶23

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

¶24

September 1 1, 2026 Manpreet

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

MANPREET SINGH 2026.09.12 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Sandeep Sharma and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sharma and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases