Dharam Raj Dangi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2025CWP/4158/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of ACP; recovery of excess payments; Higher Standard Scales; denial of 7th Pay Commission benefits; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 recovery bar urged; Ram Pal Patwari CWP No.23074 of 2010 and Parmanand CWP No.15880 of 2013 allowed 24.07.2015; LPA No.1865 of 2015 State of Haryana v. Parmanand dismissed 05.03.2025; consent disposal in terms of LPA judgment; orders setting aside ACP withdrawal and recovery; Punjab & Haryana High Court; CWP-4158-2020 (O&M); decision dated 15.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Batch of writ petitions disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 05.03.2025 in LPA No.1865 of 2015 (State of Haryana v. Parmanand); orders regarding withdrawal of ACPs and recovery from the petitioners set aside, without commenting on merits. ¶¶23

Dharam Raj Dangi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 10.05.2019, 24.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 denying the petitioners Higher Standard Scales and 7th Pay Commission benefits, and withdrawing their ACPs with recovery, are lawful and sustainable.

¶¶14

Court's answer

With the consent of the parties, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present batch of writ petitions is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 05.03.2025 passed in LPA No.1865 of 2015 (State of Haryana and others v. Parmanand and others).

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Orders regarding withdrawal of ACPs and recovery from the petitioners in the respective writ petitions are set aside.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral, 15.07.2025), CWP-4158-2020 (O&M), Dharam Raj Dangi and others v. State of Haryana and others: Writ petition challenging orders dated 10.05.2019, 24.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 denying the petitioners Higher Standard Scales and 7th Pay Commission benefits, pursuant to which ACPs were withdrawn and recovery effected. Counsel relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 against recovery and on the lead decisions in CWP No.23074 of 2010 (Ram Pal Patwari) and CWP No.15880 of 2013 (Parmanand), allowed on 24.07.2015, whose challenge in LPA No.1865 of 2015 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 05.03.2025. State counsel did not dispute the applicability of the LPA ratio. With consent, and expressly without commenting on merits, the batch of petitions was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 05.03.2025, and the orders withdrawing ACPs and directing recovery from the petitioners were set aside; pending misc. applications stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

CWP-4158-2020 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

216

¶4

Date of Decision: 15.07.2025. CWP-4158-2020 (O&M)

¶5

DHARAM RAJ DANGI AND OTHERS

¶6

…Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶9

…Respondent(s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Mohinder Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

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

¶13

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J (ORAL).

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking quashing of impugned orders dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3; dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.4; and dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.9 whereby grant of Higher Standard Scales and benefits of 7^th Pay Commission have been denied to the petitioners alleging the same to be unlawful, discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶15

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.07.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-4158-2020 (O&M) -2-

¶17

2 It is submitted that there was no misrepresentation/ concealment or fraud on the part of the petitioners in grant of ACP to them, yet, the impugned orders have been passed after huge delay. The action of effecting recovery is violative of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), reported as (2015) 4 SCC 334 .

¶18

3 It has been further submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) that a number of writ petitions involving similar controversy, as is involved in the present set of writ petitions, were decided in lead case CWP No.23074 of 2010 titled as ‘Ram Pal Patwari and others Vs. State of Haryana and another and CWP No.15880 of 2013 titled as ‘Parmanand and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ’ and the writ petitions were allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 24.07.2015. The said decisions were subject matter of challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal (LPAs) No.1865 of 2015 titled as ‘State of Haryana and others Vs. Parmanand and others ’ and other connected Letters Patent Appeals. He submits that vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the aforesaid LPAs have been dismissed. He submits that the case of the petitioners in the present set of writ petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision dated 05.03.2025 passed in aforesaid LPA and therefore, the present writ petitions may be disposed of in terms thereof.

¶19

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.07.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-4158-2020 (O&M) -3-

¶21

4 Learned State counsel does not dispute that the ratio of judgment in the matter of LPAs No.1865 of 2015 titled as ‘State of Haryana and others Vs. Parmanand and others ’ and other connected Letters Patent Appeals decided vide order dated 05.03.2025 would be applicable to the case of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions.

¶22

5 Accordingly, with the consent of the parties and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present batch of petitions is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 05.03.2025 passed in LPA No.1865 of 2015 titled as ‘State of Haryana and others Vs. Parmanand

¶23

and others ’ (supra). Orders regarding withdrawal of ACPs and recovery from the petitioners herein in the respective writ petitions are set aside.

¶24

6 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶25

July 15, 2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.07.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dharam Raj Dangi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Raj Dangi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gavinder Singh Vs Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and Another

Mohit Garg Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harmesh Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pinki Vs Haryana Public Service Comission and Others

Ashwani Kumar Gupta Vs Bank of India & Ors.