ROHIT CHOUDHARY vs STATE OF PUNJAB — CWP/14864/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010789142026

e-Filing Number

06-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/28592/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/14864/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Coram

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Category

20.4 - SC OSB (PUNJAB) ( 466 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROHIT CHOUDHARY

    Adv. SUPINDER SINGH SOHI

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.Abhimanyu Verma

  4. 4.ALOK KUMAR

  5. 5.Amandeep Singh

  6. 6.Amandeep Singh

  7. 7.Amit Kumar

  8. 8.ANOKH SINGH

  9. 9.Baljeet Singh

  10. 10.Baljinder Singh

  11. 11.Baljinder Singh

  12. 12.Bhumik

  13. 13.Davinder Kumar

  14. 14.Deepak

  15. 15.Dhanvir Singh

  16. 16.Gagandeep

  17. 17.Gagandeep Singh

  18. 18.GULSHAN KUMAR

  19. 19.Gurdial Singh

  20. 20.Gurjit Singh

  21. 21.Gurninder Singh

  22. 22.Gurtej Singh

  23. 23.Gurwinder Singh

  24. 24.Harpreet Singh

  25. 25.Jasvir kumar

  26. 26.Jaswinder Singh

  27. 27.LOVELY DHIMAN

  28. 28.Lovepreet Singh

  29. 29.Mandeep singh

  30. 30.Manish Kumar

  31. 31.Manpreet Singh

  32. 32.Mohammed Aslam

  33. 33.Mohit Kumar

  34. 34.Munish Kumar

  35. 35.Narinder Singh

  36. 36.PARDEEP KUMAR

  37. 37.Prahlad Singh

  38. 38.PREET AMAN

  39. 39.Rahul Sharma

  40. 40.Rishav sharma

  41. 41.Rohit Choudhary

  42. 42.Rohit Kumar

  43. 43.Sandeep kumar

  44. 44.Satwinder Singh Saini

  45. 45.SHAM SUNDER

  46. 46.Sunil Kumar

  47. 47.Talwinder Singh

  48. 48.TEJINDER SINGH

  49. 49.TINKU

  50. 50.Vipan Chouhan

  51. 51.GAGANDEEP SINGH

  52. 52.GULZAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.Abhimanyu Verma

  4. 4.ALOK KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh BrarView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/14864/2026 The petitioners challenged the application of amended pay regulations to their positions, arguing that regulatory amendments cannot be applied retrospectively and that their salary rights crystallized upon appointment prior to the amendment. The court directed the respondent authority to decide the petitioners' legal notice within three months, considering it in light of two precedent judgments (Saurabh Sharma and Rupinder Kumar cases) and to grant relief if petitioners are found entitled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14864/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/14864/2026 The petitioners challenged the application of amended pay regulations to their positions, arguing that regulatory amendments cannot be applied retrospectively and that their salary rights crystallized upon appointment prior to the amendment. The court directed the respondent authority to decide the petitioners' legal notice within three months, considering it in light of two precedent judgments (Saurabh Sharma and Rupinder Kumar cases) and to grant relief if petitioners are found entitled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case