Back
Breaking: High Court Mandates 7th Pay Commission Benefits for NHM Contractual Staff in Haryana
In a landmark decision that provides significant relief to thousands of healthcare workers, the has ruled that contractual employees working under the (NHM) in Haryana are entitled to the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, presiding over a batch of 22 , struck down the State's denial of these benefits as "" and "."
A Long-Standing Dispute The petitioners—comprising Staff Nurses, Pharmacists, ANMs, Lab Technicians, and other essential personnel—argued that their service conditions were governed by the . Having previously received the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission based on a structured pay framework, the employees questioned why they were excluded from the subsequent 7th Pay Commission revisions that had already been extended to similar contractual workers in the .
The State’s Defense The State of Haryana argued that the NHM is a scheme-based project with funding shared between the Union and State governments. They maintained that contractual engagement does not confer a to regular pay scales and emphasized that financial policy decisions lie firmly within the executive domain. Furthermore, the State argued the current petition was "premature" due to pending legal challenges regarding the status of the 2018 Service Bye-laws.
The Court’s Reasoning Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed the State's contentions, noting that the NHM employees were not mere "project workers" but the "operational backbone" of the state’s public health system.
The Court highlighted that the State Government had itself established a parity-based framework through the 2018 Bye-laws.
"Having consciously adopted the said parity and implemented it in letter and spirit, the respondents cannot now create an artificial distinction while extending the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission to one class of employees and denying the same to another similarly situated class,"
the order read.
Key Observations The judgment relied heavily on established , particularly the principle of . Key insights include:
-
On the Nature of Employment
:
"This Court fails to comprehend how the State, having itself adopted the pay structure in question, can subsequently choose not to follow the very policy it has framed as the same is
and
."
-
On Fairness
:
"Administrative lethargy, inter-departmental indecision or shifting stands cannot become instruments for defeating the legitimate claims of employees who have served the public healthcare system of the State for years together."
-
On Constitutional Obligation
:
"The principle of '
' is not an abstract moral claim but a constitutional guarantee flowing from
."
-
On Accountability
:
"The State cannot be permitted to convert its own administrative shortcomings into a defence against a lawful claim, for that would amount to allowing the gatekeeper of justice to become its obstacle."
A Path Forward The High Court has directed the State to revise the pay scales of all similarly situated NHM employees effective from , aligning them with the timing of benefits granted to counterpart organizations. To manage the financial impact, the Court limited the arrears to a 38-month period preceding the filing of each petition, payable with 6% interest per annum.
The government has been given three months to complete this exercise. For the thousands of frontline workers who served throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, this ruling represents not just a financial victory, but a judicial recognition of their indispensable role in the public healthcare architecture of India.
