CWP/29650/2026 of KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 11 September 2026

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to step-up the pay of the petitioners at par with their juniors w.e.f. the date of joining of their juniors as Principal due to promotion i.e. 05.08.2021, in accordance with Rules 57, 58 and 59 of Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016 and also in terms of the settled principle that senior cannot get lesser pay than the junior. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release arrears of enhanced pay or pension w.e.f. 05.08.2021 along with interest @ 18% per annum with all consequential benefits. MOHD YAKUB

Chandigarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed as PGTs/Lecturers on 05.11.1993 and 04.02.1994, respectively, as is evident from Annexure P-1, whereas their junior i.e. Anju Aggarwal, was appointed on 15.02.1996. The petitioners were promoted as Principals on 31.05.2017 (Annexure P-2), while Anju Aggarwal was promoted only on 04.08.2021 (Annexure P-3). Despite being junior and promoted later, the pay of Anju Aggarwal was fixed at Rs.1,05,600/- per month on joining as Principal on 05.08.2021, whereas the petitioners were drawing a lesser pay of Rs.1,02,800/- per month on the same date. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that this pay anomaly is required to be corrected by stepping up the pay of the petitioners in terms of Rules 57, 58 and 59 of the Haryana Civil Service (Pay) Rules, 2016. He further submits that the same benefit has already been granted to similarly situated Principals vide order dated 13.08.2026 (Annexure P-4). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners submitted a legal notice dated 23.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) seeking stepping-up of their pay in accordance with the said Rules, which remained unheeded.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.1 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the MOHD YAKUB

Chandigarh.

respondent No.1 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the legal notice (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.1.

5. Disposed of, accordingly.

6. It is made clear that in case the speaking order in terms of the directions issued by this Court is not passed within the stipulated period, then the petitioners shall be entitled to a costs of Rs.50,000/- each to be recoverable from the respondent/Department. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE 11.09.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB

Chandigarh.