Gurinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Gurinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of the judgment in CWP-11427 of 2015 (Sukhjad Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, decided 19.12.2018); respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, engaged as a Radiographer on contract basis, is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services under the State of Punjab policy instructions dated 18.03.2011, on parity with similarly situated employees already regularized and in terms of the judgment in CWP No.11427 of 2015 (Sukhjad Singh).

Court's answer

Learned State counsel was unable to controvert the petitioner's contention that his case is squarely covered by the judgment in CWP-11427 of 2015 (Sukhjad Singh, decided 19.12.2018); accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in terms of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-8135-2021 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Namit Kumar J., oral order dated 27.04.2026): A contractual Radiographer sought a writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution directing the respondents to regularize his services under the State of Punjab policy instructions dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-2), on parity with similarly situated employees already regularized, and claiming the benefit of CWP No.11427 of 2015 (Sukhjad Singh, decided 19.12.2018, Annexure P-5) and CWP No.18379 of 2019 (Sukhwinder Kaur, decided 01.10.2020, Annexure P-8). Counsel placed reliance on the affirmation of the Sukhjad Singh judgment in LPA-516 of 2020 (decided 28.03.2022) and in SLP (C) No.15325 of 2022 (decided 02.05.2025), and on its following by a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP-23027 of 2016 (decided 24.09.2024), pursuant to which services were regularised vide orders dated 16.11.2025; the case had been adjourned sine die on 20.02.2024 awaiting the SLP. Learned State counsel could not controvert the contention. Held: petition disposed of in terms of the CWP-11427 of 2015 judgment, with the respondents to consider the petitioner's regularization claim within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

221.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-8135-2021 Date of decision: 27.04.2026

Gurinder Si n gh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Pu n jab and another .... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate , for the petitioner. Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punj a b.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition has been f iled under Articles 226 and 22 7 of the Con s titution of India, seeking a w rit in the nature of mandamu s directing t h e respondents to regularize t h e services of the petitioner a s Radiograph e r in view of the policy instructions dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P -2), issued by the State of Pun j ab with effect from the date th e petitioner has completed three years of se r vice on contract basis and als o keeping in view the fact that the services of large number of employee s similarly si t uated with the petitioner have a lready been regularized and t o give the be n efit of the judgment already r endered by this Court in CWP No.11427 of 2015-Sukhjad Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and

SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.04.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8135-2021 - 2 -

another, decided on 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) and CWP No.18379 of 2019-Sukhwinder Kaur and others Versus State of Punjab and another, decided on 01.10.2020 (Annexure P-8).

On 20.02.2024, the case was adjourned sine die to await the decision of SLP No.15325 of 2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP-11427 of 2015 – Sukhjad Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, decided on 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5), which has been upheld in LPA-516 of 2020 – State of Punjab and others Versus Sukhjad Singh and others, decided on 28.03.2022 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.15325 of 2022 – The State of Punjab and another Versus Sukhjad Singh and others, decided on 02.05.2025 , which has been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-23027 of 2016 – Mrs. Gurmeet

Kaur and others Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 24.09.2024 and in pursuance thereto services of various persons have been regularised vide orders dated 16.11.2025.

Learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the said contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner despite his best efforts.

Disposed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP-11427 of 2015 – Sukhjad Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another decided on 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5). Let the claim of the

SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.04.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8135-2021

- 3 -

petitioner for regularization be considered by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

		(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE
27.04.2026
sanjeev
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

SANJEEV KUMAR 2026.04.28 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document