IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26551-2025 DECIDED ON:21.01.2026 HARVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate for the petitioners SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) vide which the claim of the petitioners for payment of arrears has been rejected and a further prayer for directing the respondents to release the arrears of salary of the promotional post w.e.f. 20.01.2017 along with an interest of 18% pa.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Gram Sevikas in the Women and Child Development Department, Haryana, through proper channel. Pursuant to Government policy, they were adjusted/absorbed as Clerks vide order dated 18.09.2003, and posting orders were issued between the years 2003 to 2006.

3. A tentative seniority list dated 28.02.2012 was issued, wherein the names of some absorbed Gram Sevikas were omitted and objections were raised by the petitioners. Thereafter, a final seniority list dated 20.01.2017 was issued, but the petitioners were placed below persons recruited in 2011, despite their earlier adjustment.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed CWP No. 3190 of 2017 tilted as “Sumitra Devi & others v. State of Haryana” wherein this Court, vide order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure P-4), sought an explanation for placing the petitioners below junior recruits.

5. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were promoted vide order dated 26.05.2023 to the post of Assistant-cum-Cashier-cum-Junior Auditor, with notional effect from 20.01.2017, but without grant of actual monetary benefits. Accordingly, the writ was disposed of on 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation, with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order within eight weeks.

6. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-6) seeking grant of actual monetary benefits in view of the notional promotion already granted to the petitioners but the same was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-7).

7. Hence, the present petition Contentions On behalf of the petitioners

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not included in the seniority list and thereby denied promotion in January 2017 despite being senior to those promoted, due to no fault of their own.

9. It is argued that once the petitioners’ seniority was corrected and promotion was granted retrospectively w.e.f. 20.01.2017 vide order dated 26.05.2023, denial of the actual monetary benefits that would have accrued to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal on the part of the respondent department since the delay in promotion occurred solely due to administrative lapse of the Department.

10. It is further argued that the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-7) is non-speaking and has been passed in violation of the directions issued by this Court on 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-5).

11. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that juniors having enjoyed higher pay from January 2017, denial of similar benefits to the petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination with the petitioners.

On behalf of respondents

12. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners were promoted as Assistants vide order dated 26.05.2023, with notional effect from 20.01.2017, and their seniority has already been protected. However, it is contended that since the petitioners never actually worked on the post of Assistant prior to 26.05.2023, therefore, they are not entitled to any arrears of salary for the earlier period. The respondents have placed reliance upon the settled principle of “no work no pay” to