Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Grains Procurement ... vs Gaganpreet Singh And Others on 18 February, 2026
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. LPA-3586-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Gaganpreet Singh and others ...Respondents
2. LPA-3723-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Vijay Kumar and others ...Respondents
3. LPA-3720-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Parveen Kumar and others ...Respondents
4. LPA-3703-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Jivtesh Singh Rawat and others ...Respondents
5. LPA-3704-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Kashmiri Lal and others ...Respondents
6. LPA-3705-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:55 :::
LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 2
Vs.
Arvind Kumar and others ...Respondents
7. LPA-3706-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Kashmiri Lal and others ...Respondents
8. LPA-3728-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Meena Rani @ Meena Kumari and others ...Respondents
9. LPA-3738-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
Gaganpreet Singh and others ...Respondents
10. LPA-3751-2025 (O&M)
Punjab State Grains Procurement
Corporation Ltd. and another ...Appellants
Vs.
Vijay Kumar and others ...Respondents
1. Date when Order was reserved 24.12.2025
2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 18.02.2026
3. Date of uploading order 18.02.2026
4. Whether operative part or full FULL
order is pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of Not Applicable
full order, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 :::
LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 3
Present: Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant (in all cases).
Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Mr. D S Patwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate,
Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate for the caveators.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate
Mr. B.P.S.Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Preet Arora, Advocate and
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.5, 11, 18, 20, 22 and 23 (in LPA-3586-2025).
Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate
for the respondents (in LPA-3586, 3706, 3738-2025).
***
DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.
CM-8815-LPA-2025 in LPA-3586-2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 14 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM-8816-LPA-2025 in LPA-3586-2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case By this common order, the aforementioned Letters Patent Appeals, 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 4 shall stand disposed of, where common facts are involved and the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioners had been allowed vide impugned judgment 12.08.2025. For the adjudication of the case(s), the facts are being taken from LPA-3586-2025.
2. Through the present intra-court appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition seeking grant of regular pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + 4400 Grade Pay, along with all allowances and consequential service benefits. The case of the respondent-petitioners was that, despite their regular appointment orders dated 29.12.2016 and 03.01.2017, they were not granted regular pay scales w.e.f. 29.12.2019 and 03.01.2020. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus was sought for grant of regular pay scale and consequential benefits.
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners are entitled to regularization in terms of the decision dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Board of Directors. It was further directed that in case of retired employees, pensionary benefits be fixed/revised apart from arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition, without interest. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable as the learned Single Judge erred in treating the appointments of the respondent-petitioners as merely irregular, whereas in fact the same were illegal ab initio, having been made without any sanctioned 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 5 posts in clear violation of the Government directive dated 11.03.2003 (Annexure R-3), which expressly prohibits engagement of regular staff. He further submits that it is settled law that appointments made dehors sanctioned posts cannot be regularized, and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments.
5. He again submits that the learned Single Judge further erred in applying the principle of parity by relying upon benefits allegedly extended to Suresh Kumar and Sushil Kumar in 2011, as it is settled that illegality cannot be perpetuated on the basis of negative equality. It is again submitted that the withdrawal order passed by them was a well-reasoned and speaking order intended to rectify an illegality, but the same has been erroneously set aside by treating it as punitive rather than corrective.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent has opposed the prayer made by the appellants, contending that despite the issuance of regular appointment letters (Annexures P-11 to P-11/Z), the respondent-corporation arbitrarily deferred the grant of regular pay scales, contrary to the terms of appointment. It is submitted that the respondent- corporation, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-16), took a complete 'U' turn by unilaterally altering the terms and conditions of appointment of employees who had been appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued during 2009-2011 and whose services had already been regularized. He also submits that the earlier regularization, granted pursuant to meeting of the Board of Directors dated 28.07.2016, was illegally withdrawn vide order dated 29.12.2016.
7. It is further contended that the withdrawal of regularization is 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 6 arbitrary and discriminatory. Similarly situated employees, who were appointed earlier on 30.04.2008 and regularized on 23.12.2011 pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 25.11.2011, continue to enjoy regular status. However, the respondents alone have been singled out and subjected to hostile discrimination, allegedly on account of having approached this Court, thereby violating the mandate of equality under law. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.5, 11, 18, 20, 22 and 23 has also argued the similar points and has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Balbir Singh and others passed in LPA-706-2020, decided on 29.03.2022.
8. Heard.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition(s) relying upon the judgments passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, and others, 1978 (1) SCC 405 and by the coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others passed in LPA-706-2020, decided on 29.03.2022. The relevant extracts of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 12.08.2025 are reproduced hereinbelow: -
"9. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to a transparent recruitment process that was initiated by respondent- Corporation by advertising for the said posts. The petitioners resigned from their respective jobs in other government undertakings and joined the respondent-Corporation with an earnest hope that they will be receive remunerations in terms of the regular pay scale, as was advertised. Further, the respondent-Corporation is an autonomous body corporate, which has adopted the policy of 2011 issued by the State Government by passing a resolution in a meeting of the Board of 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 7 Directors held on 25.11.2011, wherein it was decided that an employee who has served the respondent-Corporation for three years shall be entitled to regularisation. As such, they cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time by denying the benefits of regularisation to the petitioners, accrued to them vide resolutions taken in meetings of the Board of Directors dated 25.07.2011 and 28.07.2016, respectively.
10. Further, admittedly, some similarly situated employees were in fact regularised, as discernible from agenda No.7 of the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-14 in CWP- 20151-2021) which is reproduced as under:
7. To Discuss Xxx xxx xxx and Out of the above contract Decide to employees Recommend following have complete the The three years of Case For service and are recruited Regularisatio through proper n of process on the basis of the Service of qualification and Contract experience.
Employees in PUNGRAIN. Sr. No. Name of Contract Designation Employees
1. Survesh G.M. Kumar (Finance)
2. Sushil Financial Kumar Analyst PUNGRAIN is an independent corporation and has its own source of income/receipts.
For this proposal of direct recruitment on permanent basis financial no help would be required/taken from the Govt. of Punjab.
xxx xxx xxx RESOLVED THAT the approval of the Board of Directors be and is hereby given for submitting the case along with recommendation regarding 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 8 regularizing of the services of all employees who have completed 3 years of service to the Department of Food & i.e. the Administrative Department for its further submission to the Financial Department (Punjab). Civil Supplies(Punjab).
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the approval is also given for recommending the cases of all employees who would be completing three years of service from time to time.
Such discriminatory treatment meted out by an employer with regard to the regularisation of employees has been dealt with in extenso by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others in LPA No.706 of 2020 decided on 29.03.2022, wherein, speaking through Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, the following was held:
"12. The Finance Department in its usual stand put a spoke in the wheel on 24.12.2014 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that it was unable to accept the proposal of administrative staff. Reliance as such in the defence by the State in its written statement has been placed upon the instructions dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-10). It has been contended that Clause 5 of the said policy as such provided that only those departments could propose for regularization which are in a position to bear the financial burden after regularization of the services of their employees and would be granted permission as such and the Government shall not extend any direct or indirect financial support to these departments. Thus, the stand was that instructions dated 06.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) which the Hon'ble Chief Minister had approved were superseded in view of the instructions dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-10). Thus, the stand was taken that the Department of Finance had not given the approval correctly.
13. Mr. Tinna has thus relied upon the said defence that the Society was not in a position to bear the financial burden, therefore, the Finance Department had rightly rejected the case.
14. The said argument as such needs to be rejected outrightly. Firstly the instructions dated 17.11.2011 pertained also to 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 9 Cooperative Organization and other Societies under various departments, which would be clear from the subject index of the said instructions, which reads as under:-
"Subject: To regularize the services of Daily wages/ work charge and contractual working in Board/ Corporations/ commissions/ cooperative organizations/ other societies under various department."
15. Secondly Clause 5 which has been strongly relied upon reads as under:-
"5. Concerned Board of Directors/Competent Authority will recommend to regularize the services of contractual employees and daily wages/work charge working in various Board/Corporations/commissions under their departments, keeping in view of their financial conditions. So those departments will recommend regularize services of these employees, who are in a position to bear the financial burden after regularization of services of their employees. No direct or indirect financial burden will be given by the Government for the said purpose."
15. A perusal of the said clause would go on to show that the denial could not have been to one set of persons in the same department, who are similarly situated and once the benefit had been extended to teaching staff. It is pertinent to notice that in the proposal (Annexure P-
6) it had been noticed that only 66 non- teaching administrative employees would be involved, whereas as per the earlier meeting of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 06.11.2011 (Annexure P-5), which had been reproduced above goes on to show that total of 6452 Computer Teachers as such were involved whose services were to be regularized. Thus, the fall back on Clause 5 as such is totally on untenable grounds in comparison to the ratio as such of the teaching staff, who had been regularized whereas the non teaching staff have been given a short shrift. The decision of the Government as such is apparently arbitrary and discriminatory on the face of it and not sustainable, in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." (emphasis added)
11. Further still, the orders dated 22.10.2020(Annexure P-31 in CWP- 20151-2021) and 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-33 in CWP-20151-2021), whereby the benefit of regularisation were withdrawn from the petitioners, were passed by the Managing Director, without the approval of the Board of Directors, which make them unsustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, a perusal of the said orders 22.10.2020(Annexure P-31 in CWP-20151-2021) and 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-33 in CWP-20151-2021) does not indicate that the regularisation was withdrawn for the reason of non-availability of the sanctioned posts or for the lack of financial approval from the State Government. The respondent- Corporation cannot be allowed to present new reasons to justify its decisions, as has been attempted in the written statements, subsequent to passing of the said orders. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 10 (1978) 1 SCC 405, wherein speaking through Justice Krishna Iyer, the following was opined:
8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. In Gordhandas Bhanji case :
"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself".
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
10. The learned Single Judge observed that the benefit regularization was withdrawn from the respondents by the Managing Director without the approval of the Board of Directors vide orders dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure P- 31 in CWP-20151-2021) and 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-33 in CWP-20151- 2021) passed by appellants. Upon perusal of the same, we also believe and are in agreement with the Learned Single Judge that these orders do not indicate that the regularization was withdrawn on account of non-availability of sanctioned posts or lack of financial approval from the State Government. It was further observed that the appellants cannot be permitted to introduce new reasons to justify their decisions and relied upon several judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and passed the impugned judgment with reasons, wherein it has been held that once a benefit has been granted by a competent 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 ::: LPA-3586-2025 and other connected cases 11 authority, the same cannot be withdrawn by its successor-in-office by reviewing the matter subsequently, as has been done in the present case of the respondents.
11. Therefore, we agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that once the services of the respondents stood regularized, the same could not have been withdrawn without any justifiable reason. More particularly, when similarly situated employees, whose services were also regularized, have not been subjected to such withdrawal, and nothing has been placed on record to rebut the plea of discrimination, hence the impugned action is clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. Given the above discussion, there is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Consequently, all the above-mentioned Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA) (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
18.02.2026
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 23:03:56 :::