Dismissed¶21

Rohtash Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2025CWP/870/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rohtash Sharma v. State of Haryana and others; CWP-870-2001 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decided 02.09.2025; Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.; writ of mandamus; pay scale 2550-3200; post of Peon; aided college; third respondent/Management; ad hoc appointment 11.07.1990; consolidated pay Rs. 800 per month; appointment letter dated 11.07.1990 Annexure R-3/1; termination 05.09.1991; award dated 01.10.1996; rejoining 21.03.1997; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; equal pay for equal work; sanctioned post; no advertisement; no counter-affidavit; petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed; Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner had not been appointed on a sanctioned post, nor was the due process for selection followed. ¶20

Rohtash Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, appointed ad hoc as Peon on consolidated pay without advertisement, due selection process or a sanctioned post, is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 prescribed for the post of Peon by the State Government (via a writ of mandamus).

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner had not been appointed on a sanctioned post, nor was the due process for selection followed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's appointment was only on a consolidated salary, as reflected in the appointment letter dated 11.07.1990, he cannot be held entitled to payment of the regular scale of pay.

¶20

Key takeaways

In view of the admitted position on record, there is no ground to entertain the petition and it stands dismissed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-870-2001 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 02.09.2025 (Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., oral): Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for grant of the pay scale `2550-3200 prescribed for the post of Peon dismissed. Petitioner was appointed ad hoc as Peon in an aided College under the third respondent/Management on 11.07.1990 on a consolidated pay of `800 per month vide appointment letter dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure R-3/1), without any advertisement and not on a sanctioned post; services terminated 05.09.1991; reinstated pursuant to award dated 01.10.1996, rejoining on 21.03.1997, and paid minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The third respondent's written statement (undisputed, no counter-affidavit filed by petitioner) asserted the appointment was not in accordance with rules, so the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not apply. The Court found the petitioner had not been appointed on a sanctioned post nor selected through due process, his appointment being only on consolidated salary, and held he could not be entitled to the regular scale of pay; finding no ground to entertain the petition, it stood dismissed, and pending miscellaneous application(s) stood disposed of.

¶1

CWP-870-2001 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Sr. No.206 CWP-870-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2025

¶4

Rohtash Sharma .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶8

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶10

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date of hearing also, none appeared on his behalf.

¶12

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner pay scale of `2550-3200 prescribed for the post of Peon by the State Government.

¶13

As per averments in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Peon in an aided College under the third respondent/Management on adhoc basis on 11.07.1990, and his services were terminated on 05.09.1991. Pursuant to passing of an award dated 01.10.1996, he was allowed to rejoin on 21.03.1997 and was being paid minimum wages as notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶14

As per written statement filed on behalf of the third respondent, the petitioner had been appointed on a consolidated pay of `800 per month vide appointment letter dated 11.07.1990, Annexure R-3/1, which was being

¶15

paid out of amalgamated fund of the College. His appointment was not in

¶16

MANINDER 2025.09.05 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-870-2001 (O&M) 2

¶18

accordance with the rules. No advertisement was issued for inviting applications for the post prior to his appointment. Accordingly, the Principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ will not be applicable in his case, nor can he be held entitled to payment of salary in the pay scale meant for the regularly selected and appointed Peons by the Government. Besides, he had not been appointed on a sanctioned post.

¶19

These facts have not been disputed by the petitioner by filing any counter-affidavit.

¶20

In view of the admitted position on record, it is apparent that the petitioner had not been appointed on a sanctioned post, nor was the due process for selection followed. His appointment was only on a consolidated salary, as reflected in the appointment letter dated 11.07.1990. Accordingly, he cannot be held entitled to payment of regular scale of pay.

¶21