Pale Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Challenging the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of pay band of Rs. 3600/- instead of Rs. 3300/- has been declined, the instant writ petition had been filed.

¶16

Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP-22292 of 2013 claiming the pay scale of Rs. 480-760 w.e.f. 01.02.1981 which was wrongly withheld by respondent-Department which was disposed of with a direction dated 08.11.2012 to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 15.04.2012 within a period of three months. In compliance thereof, the office order dated

¶17

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-21336-2014 -2-

¶19

11.04.2013 was passed and technical pay scale was granted to the petitioner from 01.02.1982. Aggrieved against the said order of 11.04.2013, another CWP-23115 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner seeking grant of pay band of Rs. 3600 instead of 3300 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.05.2014 with a direction to treat the writ petition as a representation and to decide the same in accordance with law in a period of 3 months. In compliance thereto, respondent No.4 passed the order dated 22.08.2014 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected again. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶20

He contends that the petitioner was granted pay band of Rs.3300/- whereas his juniors namely Vijay Singh and Balbir Singh had been granted the grade pay of Rs. 3600/-. He contends that reliance has also been placed by the respondent-State on Haryana Act No.1 of 2014, The Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between technical and nontechnical posts) Act, 2014. It is contended that vide judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed in CWP-11710-2014 titled as “Sarbans Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others” , the Division Bench of the High Court has already passed a detailed judgment with respect to applicability of the Act against the technical/non-technical employees and the scope of Section 4 thereof.

¶21

He contends that he would be satisfied at this juncture in case a direction is issued to the respondents-authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner after taking note of the Division Bench Judgment as well. He further submits that he would file a detailed comprehensive representation within a period of six weeks.

¶22

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CWP-21336-2014 -3-

¶24

Counsel for the respondent-State does not have any serious objection to the re-consideration of the claim of the petitioner in light of the changed scenario, if applicable to the case of the petitioner.

¶25

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the consent of the parties and without commenting anything on the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation whereupon the respondent-authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as per law and after taking note of the Division Bench Judgment as well and take a fresh decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months.

¶26

JULY 02, 2025

¶27

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶28

Vishal Sharma

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶30

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.07.08 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pale Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pale Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarpreet Kaur Vs the Union of India and Others

Vikas Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Parkash Dahiya Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Krishan Lal ;and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.