1 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 272 (32 cases) Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 1 ROHTAS KUMAR Vs STATE OF CWP-35240-2025 HARYANA AND OTHERS 2 SURESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF CWP-8905-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 3 JOGINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-35364-2025 HARYANA 4 JAGBIR SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-36463-2025 AND OTHERS 5 VIJAYENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-37343-2025 HARYANA AND OTHERS 6 VIJAY SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-1029-2026 AND OTHERS 7 RAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-1558-2026 AND OTHERS 8 KULINTA DEVI Vs STATE OF CWP-18159-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 9 JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs STATE CWP-19595-2026 OF HARYANAAND OTHERS 10 RAM KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-2223-2026 AND OTHERS 11 HARI SAWROOP Vs STATE OF CWP-2599-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 12 VIJAY SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-4811-2026 AND OTHERS 13 DEVENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs CWP-5123-2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 14 SAJJAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-5298-2026 AND OTHERS 15 RAM PAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND CWP-5299-2026 OTHERS 16 CWP-5360-2026 GAJRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 17 RAMESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF CWP-5592-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 18 MAHINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-5605-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 19 SATPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-5738-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS

20 PARDEEP CHAND SANGHI Vs STATE CWP-5854-2026 OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 21 PAT RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND CWP-5897-2026 OTHERS 22 GIRRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs CWP-6142-2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 23 SULTAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS CHIEF CWP-6173-2026 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA 24 SATYAWAN SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-6398-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 25 DR DHIRAJ YADAV Vs STATE OF CWP-6429-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 26 CWP-6552-2026 PREM Vs STATE OF HARYANA 27 SUNITA DEVI Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-6609-2026 THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY 28 YAD RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-6727-2026 AND OTHERS 29 SATISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs CWP-6819-2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 30 JASBINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-7184-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 31 JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs STATE CWP-7999-2026 OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 32 RAM NIWAS Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-8148-2026 AND OTHERS PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.K Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-35364-2025 & 5360-5360-2026. Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-35240-2025 (through VC). Mr. Abhayjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2599-2026. Mr. Karamveer Singh, Advocate for petitioner in CWP-6727-2026.

Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6552, 6173 and 8905 of 2026. Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-5738-2026. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with, Ms. Samridhi, Advocate, Mr. Anirudh Malhan, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Ms. Navdita Rathore, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP-5123, 5592, 5605 & 5854-2026. Mr.Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-6142-2026. Mr. Vijay Pal with Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner in CWP-6398-2026. Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Mr. Parth Goyal and Ms. Shallu Aggarwal, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2223 & 5897-2026. Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-37343-2025, 1558, 5298 and 5299 of 2026. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik with Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocates for respondents-State (Haryana). Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate with Ms. Chetna Rao and Mr. Yadvinder Singh for respondent No.5 in CWP-8148-2026. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up together for adjudication, as they arise out of a common set of facts and involve identical questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-35364-2025.

2. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the retirement order(s)/impugned action of the respondents whereby the petitioners have been retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Further a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of continuation in service up to the age of 60 years along with all consequential service benefits in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Jora Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-2340-2023 and connected matters), decided on 06.11.2025. inter 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, alia, contends that the petitioners are employees of various departments of the State of Haryana and are persons with benchmark disabilities duly certified by the competent medical authorities under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘Act of 2016’). It is submitted that prior to the amendment dated 03.02.2026, Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter ‘HCSR’) provided for PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases

enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees with a disability of 70% and above as well as blind employees. The said provision was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Jora Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-2340-2023 and connected matters), wherein it was held that all persons having benchmark disabilities constitute one homogeneous class and the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation could not be confined only to blind employees or employees with disability of 70% and above. Consequently, the benefit of extension in service up to the age of 60 years was held to be available to all employees possessing benchmark disabilities in terms of the Act of 2016.

3.1 It is further contended that the petitioners had acquired a vested and accrued right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years in view of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh (supra) and, in several cases, consequential orders extending the date of retirement had already been issued by the competent authorities. Learned counsel submit that the subsequent notification dated 03.02.2026, whereby the benefit of extension in service to persons with disabilities has been omitted from Rule 143 of the HCSR, cannot operate retrospectively so as to divest the petitioners of rights which had already accrued in their favour. It is argued that the amendment does not expressly provide for retrospective operation and, therefore, employees who had already attained the benefit of continuation in service prior introduction of the amendment, cannot be deprived thereof. It is also contended that the omission of the benefit of enhanced age of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases superannuation to persons with disabilities is contrary to the object and spirit of the Act of 2016 and the constitutional philosophy.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made in the present petition(s) and submits that the controversy involved herein is no longer res integra. It is argued that the validity and effect of the notification dated 03.02.2026 has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajnish Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-5224-2026, wherein it has been categorically held that no employee can claim continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years after the implementation of amendment dated 03.02.2026 and that the amended Rule 143 of HCSR would apply even to current employees. It is, thus, submitted that the present petitions deserve dismissal in view of the binding precedent rendered by the Division Bench. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-books with their able assistance. 6. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment dated 03.02.2026 cannot be applied to employees who had already acquired a right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years on the strength of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh (supra). However, a similar contention stands considered by the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar (supra), wherein the effect of the amendment dated 03.02.2026 and its applicability to existing employees was directly in issue. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases

7. After examining the scheme of Act of 2016, the scope of Rule 143 of the HCSR and the effect of the amendment dated 03.02.2026, the Division Bench of this Court in Rajnish Kumar (supra) has categorically held that no vested or indefeasible right accrues in favour of an employee with regard to the age of superannuation and that the State, in exercise of its powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is competent to alter the conditions of service, including the age of retirement. It was further held that upon the amendment coming into force on 03.02.2026, no existing employee could claim continuation in service till the age of 60 years. 8 Since a categorical finding has been returned by the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar (supra) that the amendment to Rule 143, HCSR shall also apply to the existing employees and that no employee can claim extension of service beyond 58 years of age, judicial propriety demands that the conclusion arrived at therein be uniformly applied. As such, it would be unsuitable for this Court to delve into the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). Insofar as the reliance placed by the petitioners upon Jora Singh (supra) is concerned, the same would not advance their case in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar (supra).

9. This Court finds that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. Once a categorical finding has been recorded by the Division Bench that the amended Rule 143 is applicable even to existing employees and that no employee can claim continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases after 03.02.2026, judicial discipline and propriety require this Court to uniformly apply the said view. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to re-examine the very same issue. 10. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. 11. However, in terms of paragraph 37 of the judgment rendered in Rajnish Kumar (supra), if any of the petitioners have continued in service beyond the age of 58 years by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, they shall be entitled to protection of service benefits, including salary, pensionary and other consequential benefits, for the period they have actually worked. The competent authority shall examine the claim of each petitioner individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Puneet Chawla

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

1 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 272 (32 cases) Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 1 ROHTAS KUMAR Vs STATE OF CWP-35240-2025 HARYANA AND OTHERS 2 SURESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF CWP-8905-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 3 JOGINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-35364-2025 HARYANA 4 JAGBIR SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-36463-2025 AND OTHERS 5 VIJAYENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-37343-2025 HARYANA AND OTHERS 6 VIJAY SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-1029-2026 AND OTHERS 7 RAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-1558-2026 AND OTHERS 8 KULINTA DEVI Vs STATE OF CWP-18159-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 9 JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs STATE CWP-19595-2026 OF HARYANAAND OTHERS 10 RAM KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-2223-2026 AND OTHERS 11 HARI SAWROOP Vs STATE OF CWP-2599-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 12 VIJAY SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-4811-2026 AND OTHERS 13 DEVENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs CWP-5123-2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 14 SAJJAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-5298-2026 AND OTHERS 15 RAM PAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND CWP-5299-2026 OTHERS 16 CWP-5360-2026 GAJRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS Vs STATE PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 17 RAMESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF CWP-5592-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 18 MAHINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-5605-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 19 SATPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-5738-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS

20 PARDEEP CHAND SANGHI Vs STATE CWP-5854-2026 OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 21 PAT RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND CWP-5897-2026 OTHERS 22 GIRRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs CWP-6142-2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 23 SULTAN SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS CHIEF CWP-6173-2026 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA 24 SATYAWAN SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-6398-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 25 DR DHIRAJ YADAV Vs STATE OF CWP-6429-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 26 CWP-6552-2026 PREM Vs STATE OF HARYANA 27 SUNITA DEVI Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-6609-2026 THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY 28 YAD RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-6727-2026 AND OTHERS 29 SATISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs CWP-6819-2026 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 30 JASBINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF CWP-7184-2026 HARYANA AND OTHERS 31 JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs STATE CWP-7999-2026 OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 32 RAM NIWAS Vs STATE OF HARYANA CWP-8148-2026 AND OTHERS PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.K Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-35364-2025 & 5360-5360-2026. Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-35240-2025 (through VC). Mr. Abhayjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2599-2026. Mr. Karamveer Singh, Advocate for petitioner in CWP-6727-2026.

Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-6552, 6173 and 8905 of 2026. Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-5738-2026. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with, Ms. Samridhi, Advocate, Mr. Anirudh Malhan, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Ms. Navdita Rathore, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP-5123, 5592, 5605 & 5854-2026. Mr.Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-6142-2026. Mr. Vijay Pal with Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner in CWP-6398-2026. Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Mr. Parth Goyal and Ms. Shallu Aggarwal, Advocates for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2223 & 5897-2026. Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-37343-2025, 1558, 5298 and 5299 of 2026. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. AG, Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik with Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocates for respondents-State (Haryana). Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate with Ms. Chetna Rao and Mr. Yadvinder Singh for respondent No.5 in CWP-8148-2026. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up together for adjudication, as they arise out of a common set of facts and involve identical questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-35364-2025.

2. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the retirement order(s)/impugned action of the respondents whereby the petitioners have been retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Further a prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of continuation in service up to the age of 60 years along with all consequential service benefits in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Jora Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-2340-2023 and connected matters), decided on 06.11.2025. inter 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, alia, contends that the petitioners are employees of various departments of the State of Haryana and are persons with benchmark disabilities duly certified by the competent medical authorities under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘Act of 2016’). It is submitted that prior to the amendment dated 03.02.2026, Rule 143 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter ‘HCSR’) provided for PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases

enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees with a disability of 70% and above as well as blind employees. The said provision was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Jora Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-2340-2023 and connected matters), wherein it was held that all persons having benchmark disabilities constitute one homogeneous class and the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation could not be confined only to blind employees or employees with disability of 70% and above. Consequently, the benefit of extension in service up to the age of 60 years was held to be available to all employees possessing benchmark disabilities in terms of the Act of 2016.

3.1 It is further contended that the petitioners had acquired a vested and accrued right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years in view of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh (supra) and, in several cases, consequential orders extending the date of retirement had already been issued by the competent authorities. Learned counsel submit that the subsequent notification dated 03.02.2026, whereby the benefit of extension in service to persons with disabilities has been omitted from Rule 143 of the HCSR, cannot operate retrospectively so as to divest the petitioners of rights which had already accrued in their favour. It is argued that the amendment does not expressly provide for retrospective operation and, therefore, employees who had already attained the benefit of continuation in service prior introduction of the amendment, cannot be deprived thereof. It is also contended that the omission of the benefit of enhanced age of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases superannuation to persons with disabilities is contrary to the object and spirit of the Act of 2016 and the constitutional philosophy.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made in the present petition(s) and submits that the controversy involved herein is no longer res integra. It is argued that the validity and effect of the notification dated 03.02.2026 has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajnish Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-5224-2026, wherein it has been categorically held that no employee can claim continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years after the implementation of amendment dated 03.02.2026 and that the amended Rule 143 of HCSR would apply even to current employees. It is, thus, submitted that the present petitions deserve dismissal in view of the binding precedent rendered by the Division Bench. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-books with their able assistance. 6. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the amendment dated 03.02.2026 cannot be applied to employees who had already acquired a right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years on the strength of the judgment rendered in Jora Singh (supra). However, a similar contention stands considered by the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar (supra), wherein the effect of the amendment dated 03.02.2026 and its applicability to existing employees was directly in issue. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases

7. After examining the scheme of Act of 2016, the scope of Rule 143 of the HCSR and the effect of the amendment dated 03.02.2026, the Division Bench of this Court in Rajnish Kumar (supra) has categorically held that no vested or indefeasible right accrues in favour of an employee with regard to the age of superannuation and that the State, in exercise of its powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is competent to alter the conditions of service, including the age of retirement. It was further held that upon the amendment coming into force on 03.02.2026, no existing employee could claim continuation in service till the age of 60 years. 8 Since a categorical finding has been returned by the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar (supra) that the amendment to Rule 143, HCSR shall also apply to the existing employees and that no employee can claim extension of service beyond 58 years of age, judicial propriety demands that the conclusion arrived at therein be uniformly applied. As such, it would be unsuitable for this Court to delve into the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). Insofar as the reliance placed by the petitioners upon Jora Singh (supra) is concerned, the same would not advance their case in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in Rajnish Kumar (supra).

9. This Court finds that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. Once a categorical finding has been recorded by the Division Bench that the amended Rule 143 is applicable even to existing employees and that no employee can claim continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-35240-2025 and connected cases after 03.02.2026, judicial discipline and propriety require this Court to uniformly apply the said view. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to re-examine the very same issue. 10. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. 11. However, in terms of paragraph 37 of the judgment rendered in Rajnish Kumar (supra), if any of the petitioners have continued in service beyond the age of 58 years by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, they shall be entitled to protection of service benefits, including salary, pensionary and other consequential benefits, for the period they have actually worked. The competent authority shall examine the claim of each petitioner individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Puneet Chawla

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document