Amardeep Singh Nagra & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to supplement the representations (Annexures P-16 to P-19) within a period of two weeks from today and respondent No.2 is directed…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vidushi Kumar and Ms. Seema Rani, Advocates for the petitioners. NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioners from the post of AEE (Diploma Holder) to the post of Senior Executive Engineer (Electrical) against 10% promotional quota earmarked for diploma holder Engineers under Regulation 10(8)(b) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965, as amended and applicable to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), vis-a-vis Assistant Engineers, who are degree holders or any other category and to grant the petitioners promotion against all posts falling to the share/quota of diploma holder Engineers along with deemed date of promotion, seniority, arrears of pay and all other consequential service benefits from the date the petitioners became eligible and such vacancies/posts became available within the said 10% quota. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned legal opinion dated 15.05.2019 (Annexure P-8) approved by respondent No.2.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that for redressal of their grievances, the petitioners have also submitted representations (Annexures P-16 to P-19) to the respondents which is still pending consideration. He further submits that at this stage, the CWP-19669-2026 -2- petitioners would be satisfied, if the petitioners may be given liberty to supplement the abovesaid representations and appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said representations, by passing a speaking order, in a time bound manner.
Notice of motion restricted to respondents No.1 to 4 only at this stage.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1-State. Mr. Chetan Juneja, Advocate has put in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4- PSPCL. They have 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.
Operative part
Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to supplement the representations (Annexures P-16 to P-19) within a period of two weeks from today and respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the said representations 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 this order. Further, the decision taken thereon shall be conveyed to the petitioners.
03.07.2026 kothiyal (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 03 Jul 2026. The bench was ADVOCATES, NAMIT KUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.