CWP-219633-2026 1 INN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH (129) CWP-21963-2026 Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 Hapreet Sinngh ...Petitioner Versuus State of Punnjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KUULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocatte and Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punnjab. *** KULDEEPP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is the second round of littigation. Earlier, the petitioner hadh approached this Court, by filing a CWP-73006-2017, seeking relief to continnue his servicess, which were discontinued wway back on 22.03.2012, due to non-available of the budget. 2. The writ petition (supra), remaained pending adjudication befofore this Court, for about 09 years, and ultimmately, it was disposed of byy a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawwing an order dated 05.03.20026 (Annexure P-3), with a direction upon thhe respondent No.1, to decide thet representatioon of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was decided, by the Registraar, Punjabi University, Patiala (respondent No.1), by passingg a MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 speaking orrder dated 15.05.2026 (Annexurre P-1), whereby, the relief sougght I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-219633-2026 2

by the petittioner was declined. Fetching ggrievance from the said speakiing order, the innstant writ petition has been filled challenging the legality of thet speaking ordder (supra). 4. What surfaced from perusaal of the speaking order datted 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), is that the pettitioner was appointed in the yeear 2009, as a Mali, on a daily wage basis (muster roll). His services were dispensed wwith on 22.03.2012, on account of non-availability of the budgget. The responddent/authorities concerned, re-coonsidered the case of the petitionner, and find thaat even at present, there is no sppecific provision of Budget, for thet post of a MMali, on a daily wage (muster rooll), and therefore, the claim of thet petitioner foor re-appointment cannot be conssidered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitiooner, while challenging the legallity of the speakking order (supra), submits thaat the respondents have acted inn a manifestly ddiscriminatory manner, as similaarly situated Mali(s) were allowwed to continue in service, even after the petitionner’s services were dispensed wiith. To support tthis, learned counsel for the petiitioner has placed reliance upon an internal commmunication dated 22.05.2012 (AAnnexure P-5).

6. The aforesaid contention, hhowever, merits rejection. TheT petitioner’s plea of discrimination is misp laced for two reasons; firstly, thet individuals cited in Annexure P-5, weere attached to the Horticultuure Department , and drawn against a distinctt budgetary allocation specificaally “Botanical Garden Temporary Labour/Woork Charged Staff”. Secondly, thet said commuunication pertains to 22.05.20122, and the record so placed befofore this Court i s bereft of any material to demmonstrate that those workmen were actually retaained thereafter. Neither any rellevant document has been brougght MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-219633-2026 3 on record too substantiate that the said indivviduals are still continuing against the allocatedd budget under the relevant headd. 7. In view of the above, no right, whatsoever, exists in favour of thet petitioner, sseeking re-employment. Conseqquently, the instant writ petitionn is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE July 20, 20226 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-219633-2026 1 INN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH (129) CWP-21963-2026 Date of Decision : 20.07.2026 Hapreet Sinngh ...Petitioner Versuus State of Punnjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KUULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocatte and Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punnjab. *** KULDEEPP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is the second round of littigation. Earlier, the petitioner hadh approached this Court, by filing a CWP-73006-2017, seeking relief to continnue his servicess, which were discontinued wway back on 22.03.2012, due to non-available of the budget. 2. The writ petition (supra), remaained pending adjudication befofore this Court, for about 09 years, and ultimmately, it was disposed of byy a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawwing an order dated 05.03.20026 (Annexure P-3), with a direction upon thhe respondent No.1, to decide thet representatioon of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was decided, by the Registraar, Punjabi University, Patiala (respondent No.1), by passingg a MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 speaking orrder dated 15.05.2026 (Annexurre P-1), whereby, the relief sougght I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-219633-2026 2

by the petittioner was declined. Fetching ggrievance from the said speakiing order, the innstant writ petition has been filled challenging the legality of thet speaking ordder (supra). 4. What surfaced from perusaal of the speaking order datted 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), is that the pettitioner was appointed in the yeear 2009, as a Mali, on a daily wage basis (muster roll). His services were dispensed wwith on 22.03.2012, on account of non-availability of the budgget. The responddent/authorities concerned, re-coonsidered the case of the petitionner, and find thaat even at present, there is no sppecific provision of Budget, for thet post of a MMali, on a daily wage (muster rooll), and therefore, the claim of thet petitioner foor re-appointment cannot be conssidered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitiooner, while challenging the legallity of the speakking order (supra), submits thaat the respondents have acted inn a manifestly ddiscriminatory manner, as similaarly situated Mali(s) were allowwed to continue in service, even after the petitionner’s services were dispensed wiith. To support tthis, learned counsel for the petiitioner has placed reliance upon an internal commmunication dated 22.05.2012 (AAnnexure P-5).

6. The aforesaid contention, hhowever, merits rejection. TheT petitioner’s plea of discrimination is misp laced for two reasons; firstly, thet individuals cited in Annexure P-5, weere attached to the Horticultuure Department , and drawn against a distinctt budgetary allocation specificaally “Botanical Garden Temporary Labour/Woork Charged Staff”. Secondly, thet said commuunication pertains to 22.05.20122, and the record so placed befofore this Court i s bereft of any material to demmonstrate that those workmen were actually retaained thereafter. Neither any rellevant document has been brougght MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-219633-2026 3 on record too substantiate that the said indivviduals are still continuing against the allocatedd budget under the relevant headd. 7. In view of the above, no right, whatsoever, exists in favour of thet petitioner, sseeking re-employment. Conseqquently, the instant writ petitionn is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE July 20, 20226 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment