Disposed¶26

Ram Phal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CWP/3512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

pay fixation; parity with junior; Rajinder Kumar; stoppage of four increments; future effect; cumulative effect; office order No.8355 dated 24.11.1998; service book; personal file not traceable; disputed question of fact; malice; withdrawal with liberty; alternative remedies; Beldar; Water Pump Operator-II; Public Health Engineering Division Narwana; CWP-3512-2022 (O&M); Vinod S. Bhardwaj; Punjab and Haryana High Court

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedies available to the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶26

Ram Phal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedies available to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to fixation of his pay at par with his junior Rajinder Kumar. +2 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition raises disputed questions of fact — whether the punishment of stoppage of four increments was ever imposed on the petitioner, and what benefits can be extended to him on account of documents not being traceable.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the writ petition was filed nearly 24 years after the order and there is no allegation of malice or mischief, the stand of the respondents cannot be said to be fully improbable.ratio¶21
The present writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedies available to him in accordance with law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ram Phal v. The State of Haryana and Others, CWP-3512-2022 (O&M), Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral), decided 07.05.2025 — Petitioner, who joined as Beldar on 27.03.1982 and was promoted as Water Pump Operator-II w.e.f. 25.04.2013, sought fixation of pay at par with his junior Rajinder Kumar. The departmental reply (Public Health Engineering Division, Narwana) attributed the lower salary to punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect imposed vide office order No.8355 dated 24.11.1998, entered in the service book and never challenged; the petitioner's personal file/service record was stated to be untraceable other than the service book. Holding that the petition raised disputed questions of fact — whether the punishment was ever imposed and what benefits are due given the untraceable records — and noting the nearly 24-year delay and absence of any allegation of malice or mischief, the court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty to pursue alternative remedies in accordance with law.

¶1

CWP-3512-2022 (O&M). - 1 -

¶2

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

239

¶4

CWP-3512-2022 (O&M). Date of Decision: 07.05.2025.

RAM PHAL

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

¶11

Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶13

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶14

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for fixation

¶15

of his pay at par with Rajinder Kumar, who is junior to him.

¶16

2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined the respondent as Beldar on 27.03.1982 and was thereafter promoted as Water Pump Operator- II w.e.f. 25.04.2013. He contends that the salary being paid to the petitioner is less than his junior and that on the same coming to his knowledge, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking fixation of his pay at par with what is being paid to his junior.

¶17

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.05.12 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-3512-2022 (O&M).

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

3 A reply has been filed through the Public Health Engineering Division, Narwana, wherein it has been averred that as per the service record, punishment of stoppage of four increments with future effect was imposed upon the petitioner vide office order No.8355 dated 24.11.1998 and an entry in this regard was made in his service book. It was on the said account that the salary of the petitioner is less than his junior. The order of imposing major penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was never challenged and has become final. It has also been averred that personal file/service record of the petitioner is not traceable in the respondent-Department other than the service book, hence, the other particulars cannot be furnished.

¶21

4 Even though counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of the personal file, the contentions/defence of the respondent-Department cannot be accepted at this stage considering that the service book is maintained in the normal course of business and an entry made thereunder would have been on the basis of contemporaneous documents, however, the instant writ petition has been filed after a period of nearly 24 years of passing of the order and as such, the stand of the respondents cannot be said to be fully improbable. Besides this, there is no allegation of any malice or mischief. The petition thus raises a disputed question of fact as to whether the punishment was ever imposed on the petitioner and as to what benefits can be extended to the petitioner on account of documents not being traceable.

¶22

5 Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedies available to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.05.12 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-3512-2022 (O&M). - 3 -

¶25