Dismissed¶23

Din Dayal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025LPA/1010/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Din Dayal v. State of Haryana and others; LPA No.1010 of 2025 (O&M); High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 01.07.2025; Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.; Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.; appeal dismissed; step-up of salary; pay parity; inter-se seniority; bifurcation of departments; Department of Food and Drugs; Health Department; Bacha Narayan; Swasthya Sahayak; Class-IV post; Laboratory Attendant; notification dated 21.02.1992; CWP No.1653 of 2019; Single Judge order dated 18.04.2024; condonation of delay 44 days filing and 236 days re-filing; CM No.2497-LPA of 2025; CM No.2498-LPA of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The step-up of salary as claimed by the writ-petitioner vis-a-vis Bacha Narayan is not made out. ¶22

Din Dayal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to step-up of salary / the benefits given to Bacha Narayan (stated to be junior to him and drawing higher salary), notwithstanding the bifurcation of the departments which were earlier one. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The step-up of salary as claimed by the writ-petitioner vis-a-vis Bacha Narayan is not made out.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The writ-petitioner is in the Department of Food and Drugs while Bacha Narayan continues in the Health Department; both departments being different (post-bifurcation), there is no question of inter-se seniority between the writ-petitioner and Bacha Narayan.

¶22

Key takeaways

The claim of parity of pay to that of Laboratory Attendant on the basis of the notification dated 21.02.1992 is also not made out.ratio¶23
The writ-petitioner has been working on the post of Swasthya Sahayak, which is a Class-IV post and does not fall within the notification dated 21.02.1992; hence the parity claim fails.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.) dismises LPA No.1010 of 2025 (O&M) — Din Dayal v. State of Haryana and others (decided 01.07.2025). Delays of 44 days in filing and 236 days in re-filing the appeal were condoned (CM Nos.2497-LPA and 2498-LPA of 2025). The appeal challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 18.04.2024 in CWP No.1653 of 2019 dismissing the writ petition. Held: (i) step-up of salary vis-a-vis Bacha Narayan (stated to be junior to the appellant and drawing higher salary) is not made out, because the appellant serves in the Department of Food and Drugs while Bacha Narayan continues in the Health Department — the departments having been bifurcated, there is no inter-se seniority between them; and (ii) parity of pay with a Laboratory Attendant on the basis of the notification dated 21.02.1992 is not made out, as the appellant works on the post of Swasthya Sahayak, a Class-IV post falling outside that notification. On both counts the claim was held rightly rejected; no case for interference was found and the appeal was dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

¶1

104

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

LPA No.1010 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2025

Din Dayal

…Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

Present:Ms. Mansi, Advocate for Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoke, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

¶12

CM No.2498-LPA of 2025

¶13

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 236 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶14

CM No.2497-LPA of 2025

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 44 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

¶16

LPA No.1010 of 2025

¶17

The appeal assails the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2024 in CWP No.1653 of 2019 whereby the writ-petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside as the prayer made by the writ-petitioner deserves to be allowed as earlier both the departments were one and merely because both the departments have

¶19

NEETU RANI 2025.07.03 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶20

LPA No.1010 of 2025 (O&M) -2-

¶21

been bifurcated, the writ-petitioner ought not been denied the benefits which have already been given to a person, who was junior to him namely Bacha Narayan whose salary is higher than the writ-petitioner/appellant. Otherwise, his pay should be also declared equivalent to be that of Laboratory Attendant.

¶22

On both the counts, we find that learned Single Judge has examined the case thoroughly and has reached to the conclusion that the stepup of salary as claimed by the writ-petitioner viz-a-viz Bacha Narayan is not made out as the writ-petitioner is in the Department of Food and Drugs at the station while Bacha Narayan continues in the Health Department. Both the departments being different, there is no question of inter-se seniority between the writ-petitioner and Bacha Narayan.

¶23

We also notice that the claim of parity of pay to that of Laboratory Attendant on the basis of notification dated 21.02.1992 is also not made out as the writ-petitioner has been working on the post of Swasthya Sahayak which is a Class-IV post and does not fall within the notification dated 21.02.1992. Thus, on both the counts, the claim of the writ-petitioner/ appellant has rightly been rejected. No case for interference is made out. The present appeal is dismissed.

¶24

Pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

01.07.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶28

NEETU RANI 2025.07.03 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

Din Dayal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Din Dayal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Satish Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Jitender Kumar

Union of India and Ors. Vs Jaspal Singh and Another