Deen Dayal Singh Vs St of Haryana and Ors.

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of Chargeman (Electrical) to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.1976 when the petitioner was promoted as such by the respondents; and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.7.2001, Annexure P-2, vide which the petitioner has been redesignated as Chargeman (Misc.) from the post of Chargeman (Electrical); and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other order or direction, directing the respondents not to reduce the salary of the petitioner which he is entitled to draw as Chargeman (Electrical) as the petitioner is working as Chargeman (Electrical) in the respondent-Department.

¶16

Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:–

¶17

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 2 of 20

¶19

1.11.1971: The petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Department on the post of T.Mate on work-charged basis by the SDO, L/Mechanical, Subdivision, Charkhi Dadri w.e.f. 01.11.1971.

¶20

19.05.1972: Vide letter dated 19.05.1972 issued by the Executive w.e.f. Engineer, Loharu Jind, petitioner was promoted as Electrician 1.4.1972 .

¶21

5.3.1976 w.e.f. : The petitioner was promoted as Chargeman (Electrical) 1.3.1976 vide order dated 5.3.1976 issued by XEN, Loharu, Mechanical Division, Rohtak.

¶22

2.5.1980 : Vide order dated 24.07.1980 issued by Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Haryana petitioner was regularized as Chargeman w.e.f. 02.05.1980.

¶23

30.6.1994 : It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was allowed all the increments by the Executive Engineer, Loharu, Mechanical Division, Rohtak, from time to time, in the pay scale allowed to him as Chargeman. However, petitioner was not paid the pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical), the post on which he was working. Then vide letter No.3191A to 3200A/12A dated 30.6.1994, pay scale of the petitioner was fixed as Chargeman (Electrical) with effect from 1.4.1979 by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Drainage Division, Hisar. Vide the same letter the pay scale of the petitioner was refixed as Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.1.1986.

¶24

27.10.1994 : However, vide letter dated 27.10.1994 the pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical) previously given to the petitioner vide letter

¶25

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 3 of 20

¶27

dated 30.06.1994, was withdrawn and refixed as Chargeman (Ordinary). Thus, pay scale pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical) was now withdrawn and refixed to to that of Chargeman (Ordinary) to the disadvantage of the petitioner without citing any reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing before the withdrawal.

¶28

Nil : Accordingly, petitioner had submitted representation dated nil (Annexure P-3).

¶29

5.11.1998 : Vide letter dated 05.11.1998 (Annexure P-4) issued by the General manager (P) Irrigation Department, Haryana, case of the petitioner was sent to respondent No.3 for consideration.

¶30

7.12.1998 : Vide letter dated 07.12.1998, respondent No.3 forwarded the above said letter 05.11.1998 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 for information and necessary action. Alongwith the representation, service book of the petitioner was also enclosed.

¶31

9.12.1998: On sending case of the petitioner for correction of the promotion order causing recurring financial loss to the petitioner by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, the petitioner made a further representation dated 9.12.1998 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2. In this representation, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 that the petitioner was doing the work of rewinding electric motors and repairs of electrical equipments like switches, starters and transformers etc. In view of his this work, the petitioner requested that his designation be changed from Chargeman (Misc.) to Chargeman (Electrical) at an early date so that no financial loss is accrued to the petitioner.

¶32

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 4 of 20

¶34

9.12.1998 : The said representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Officer to respondent No.2 vide Endorsement dated 09.12.1998 with the remark that the petitioner was working in the said Sub-Division for the last so many years and had been discharging duties of Chargeman (Electrical). It was further certified by the said SDO that the petitioner was rewinding the electrical motors and was repairing electrical equipments such as switches, starters and transformers etc. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was recommended that he may be treated as Chargeman (Electrical) and necessary order may be issued at an early date.

¶35

14.12.1998 : Consequently, respondent No.2, passed order dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-6), to the effect that the petitioner be treated as Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Perusal of Annexure P-6 would show that these orders were passed by respondent No.2 “ In pursuance of the Instructions contained in C.M. (P), Irrigation Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, letter No.21830/7-EG/98 dated 5.11.1998, and as recommended by SDO, Y.W.S. (Mech.) Jind, vide his letter no. 1108/3 dated 9.12.1998. Shri Din Dayal Singh, Chargeman is hereby treated as Chargeman (Electrical) with effect from 1.1.1996 because he is discharging the duties applicable to such category of staff since long. ” Accordingly, the pay scale of petitioner was ordered to be fixed as part of Chargeman (Electrical).

¶36

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 5 of 20

¶38

15.1.1999: Vide order dated 15.1.1999 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no.2, pay of the petitioner was fixed as Chargeman . (Electrical) with efect from 1.1.1996f

¶39

17.1.2001 : The respondent no.2 also sent letter dated 17.1.2001 (Annexure P-12) to respondent No.5 making it clear that the action to fix the pay of petitioner in the capacity of Chargeman (Electrical) had been rightly taken; and that the designation of the petitioner was rightly changed as the Chargeman (Electrical).

¶40

13.3.2001 : The respondent no.3 also sent a letter dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure P-13) to respondent No.4 requesting for sanctioning of the post of Chargeman (Electrical) to the Circle in which the petitioner was working; while also observing that the petitioner was promoted from Electrician and deserves to be treated as Chargeman (Electrical).

¶41

13.6.2001: However, thereafter to the utter surprise of the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.6.2001 (Annexure P-7), issued for withdrawal of order dated 14.12.1998. notice of 15 days

¶42

2.7.2001 : The petitioner had initially filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction dated 02.07.2001 praying that the respondents/defendants be restrained from withdrawing promotion of the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical).

¶43

4.7.2001 : In the meantime, respondent no.2 issued impugned order dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure P-2), changing designation of the petitioner from Chargeman (Electrical) to Chargeman (Ordinary).

¶44

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 6 of 20

¶46

9.7.2001 : Vide order dated 09.07.2001 (Annexure P-8) learned Civil Judge had granted status quo in favour of the petitioner.

¶47

14.7.2001: In compliance of order dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure P-2), the respondent Department had issued order dated 14.07.2001 (Annexure P-10 ); whereby pay of the petitioner has been refixed as Chargeman (Ordinary) w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Vide the said impugned order, recovery of excess amount w.e.f. 01.01.1996 has also been ordered to be made. 19.9.2001 : As in the meantime, designation of the petitioner had already been changed from Chargeman (Electrical) to Chargeman (Ordinary) vide impugned order dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure P-2), then by maintaining the status quo granted by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure P-8), the basic purpose of filing the suit for permanent injunction had been frustrated. As such, vide order dated 19.9.2001, petitioner was permitted to withdraw the above said Civil Suit on the basis of statements dated 19.9.2001 (Annexures P-9, 9/A and 9/B).

¶48

12.10.2002: Hence, present writ petition.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in changing the designation of the petitioner from Chargeman (Electrical) to Chargeman (Ordinary) and seeking to effect recovery from the salary of the petitioner cannot be sustained being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was doing the same job work which the other employees are doing in the respondent-Department on the post of Chargeman (Electrical). Thus, petitioner is eligible to draw pay scale of

¶50

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 7 of 20

¶52

Chargeman (Electrical) which other similarly situated persons are drawing on the same post. Equal pay for equal work is well-established tenet of law and needs no argument. It is pointed out that even the officials of the respondent Department have made it clear that the petitioner was doing the work on the post of Chargeman (Electrical) for the last many years. As such, there is no reason as to why petitioner should be denied the said pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical), and why recovery should be affected.

¶53

Ld. Counsel also submits that the Service record of the petitioner is blemish free. It is also not disputed by the respondents that petitioner was working on the post of Chargeman (Electrical) since 1.3.1976. As such, petitioner cannot be denied pay scale of the post on which he has worked. Moreover, respondent no.3 vide letter dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure P-13) had requested respondent no.4 to sanction post of Chargeman (Electrical), to the Circle in which the petitioner was working as petitioner was working on the said post; and as the petitioner was promoted from Electrician, he deserves to be treated as Chargeman (Electrical). It was also stated in the said letter that the Chargeman (Misc.) were promoted from the post of Fitter and as such workmen are not deployed on electrical jobs. It was further stated that the petitioner was promoted from the post of Electrician and he is working for rewinding of electrical motors and other electrical jobs, hence he is treated to be Chargeman (Electrical). Hence it is the admitted case of the respondent Department that the petitioner is

¶54

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 8 of 20

¶56

working on the post Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.3.1976 and was regularised w.e.f. 2.5.1980. Under these facts and circumstances, it is a fit case in which interference of this Court is called for to direct the respondents to grant the pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical) to the petitioner from the date when he was promoted as such.

¶57

Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned action is also not sustainable on the ground that other persons similarly situated as the petitioner are drawing pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical). It is submitted that the petitioner even in his representation (Annexure P-3) as well as in the instant Writ Petition has mentioned the names and details of these persons such as one Shri Suraj Parkash who was promoted from the post of Fitter to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) is drawing pay scale applicable to such category of staff. Other cases cited by the petitioner in his said representation were that of Deepak Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Rattan Singh. Ld. Counsel submits that the petitioner is having same qualification as the abovesaid persons are having and is performing the same duties and functions which are being also performed by these above said persons. In this regard, ld. Counsel relies upon 2 authorities of this Court cited as Keshav Dutt Vs. State of

¶58

Haryana 1997 (4) SCT 352 and Karamvir Sharma Vs. State of Haryana 1997 (3) SCT 803 , as per which, an employee who is similarly situated deserves the same pay as given to other employees. Thus, petitioner is also entitled to the grant of the pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical)

¶59

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 9 of 20

¶61

which were being drawn by the similarly situated persons working in same Department.

¶62

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.3.1976 and was subsequently regularised on the same post w.e.f. 02.05.1980. Even promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) finds mention at many places in his service-book. In representation Annexure P-3, the petitioner brought to notice of the respondent-Department that even as per service-book the petitioner was designated as Chargeman (Electrical) and the entries to this effect find mention at page No.10 of service-book Part I, Page 15-A of service book Part II. It was also submitted by the petitioner that even the Executive Engineer Drainage, Mechanical Division, Hisar by treating the designation of the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical) at page 12 of the service-book Part III, vide his office order No.3198-3200/12-A dated 30.6.1994, granted the pay scale of Rs.170-300 and Rs.1200-2400 w.e.f. 1.4.1979 and 1.1.1986 respectively. Unfortunately, the same was withdrawn without assigning any reason or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ld. Counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Grover Versus State of Haryana and another, AIR 1983 (SC) 1060, wherein it has been held that an employee is entitled to draw pay of the post on which he is working/worked. Similarly finding has been given by this Court in Madan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) SCT 21 . As such, the petitioner deserves pay scale of

¶63

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 10 of 20

¶65

Chargeman (Electrical) i.e. the post on which the petitioner has been continuously working since 1.3.1976.

¶66

Furthermore, the impugned act of the respondents to change designation of the petitioner from Chargeman (Electrical) to Chargeman (Ordinary) amounted to reversion for which no enquiry had been conducted by the respondents. Therefore, the said action is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was drawing the pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical) which was higher than that of the Chargeman (Misc.) and if pay scale of an employee is reduced by way of change of designation, it amounts to reversion, which can only be done by holding an enquiry against such an employee. In the case in hand neither there is any charge nor any enquiry against the petitioner and the designation of the petitioner has been changed which has amounted to reversion of the petitioner.

¶67

Ld. Counsel further submits that the said act of the respondents is also violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of India as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was working as Chargeman (Electrical) since 01.03.1976 but was being paid the salary of Chargeman (Misc.) as some of the juniors to the petitioner are drawing more pay than him. In this regard, it is submitted that one Shri Bhagwan and another employee, namely, Sairaju Deen were appointed in the year 1977-78 as Chargeman and were regularised on 28.11.1983. These above said two persons alongwith other such persons are junior to the petitioner and are drawing more salary than the petitioner. For instance

¶68

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 11 of 20

¶70

above said Shri Bhagwan is drawing Rs.6200/- as basic pay and Sairaju Deen is drawing basic pay of Rs.6050/- whereas after reversion/refixation of pay, the petitioner's basic pay is Rs.5750/- only. In this way a great injustice has been caused to the petitioner as discrimination qua the petitioner is writ large on the face of it.

¶71

He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and following prayers be accepted:-

¶72

“ i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.3.1976 to the petitioner when the petitioner was promoted as such by the respondents;

¶73

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.7.2001, Annexure P-2, vide which the petitioner has been redesignated as Chargeman (Misc.) from the post of Chargeman (Electrical);

¶74

iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other order or direction, directing the respondents not reduce to the salary of the petitioner which he is entitled to draw as Chargeman (Electrical) as the petitioner is working as Chargeman (Electrical) in the respondent-Department.”

¶75

Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is no question of the petitioner being promoted to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) as no such post was in existence. Moreover, order dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-6) promoting the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical) has not been passed by the competent authority.

¶76

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶77

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 12 of 20

¶78

Thus, petitioner has been correctly reverted to the post of Chargeman (Misc.). He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

¶79

No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in a great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶80

It is not denied by learned counsel for the State that petitioner was first promoted to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) vide order dated 1.3.1976. It is also not denied by the respondents that since then, the petitioner has been performing the duties of Chargeman (Electrical). In fact, order of promotion dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-6) itself mentions that petitioner is discharging duties of Chargeman (Electrical) since long: -

¶81

“In pursuance of the instructions contained in C.M. (P), Irrigation Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, letter No.21830/7-EG/98 dated 5.11.98, and as recommended by SDO, Y.W.S. (Mech.) Sub Division Jind, vide his letter No.1108/3 dated 9.12.1998. Shri Din Dayal Singh, Chargeman is hereby treated as Chargeman (Electrical) with effect from 1.1.1996 because he is discharging the duties applicable to such category of staff since long .”

¶82

Thus, it is admitted fact on record that petitioner has been discharging function of Chargeman (Electrical). Even in the written statement filed by the respondents, it is not denied that the petitioner had been performing the duties of Chargeman (Electrical). In these

¶83

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶84

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 13 of 20

¶85

admitted facts, there is no reason as to why petitioner should be denied the pay scale of the said post of Chargeman (Electrical).

¶86

It has been sought to be contended by the respondents that the promotion of the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f 1.3.1976 was not proper as he was not promoted by competent authority; and that petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned post. Even if that is so, it is not disputed that petitioner has been disbursing the duties of Chargeman (Electrical). Once that is so, and it is not disputed that respondents have been taking the work of Chargeman (Electrical) from the petitioner, and that too for several years, pay scale of said post cannot be denied to him.

¶87

The said arguments on behalf of the respondents are also not acceptable as, the facts in chronological order enumerated hereinabove show that respondents have been playing musical chairs with the petitioner. Vide order dated 1.3.1976, Petitioner is promoted as Chargeman (Electrical); vide order dated 30.6.1994, petitioner is granted pay scale admissible to post of Chargeman (Electrical); vide order dated 27.10.1994 the said pay scale is withdrawn; thereafter vide order dated 14.12.1998 (P-6), petitioner is again promoted as Chargeman (Electrical); vide order dated 15.1.1999 (P-1) Petitioner is again granted pay scale of Chargeman (Electrical) with effect from 1.1.1996; and finally, impugned order dated 4.7.2001 is passed, changing designation of the petitioner from Chargeman (Electrical) to Chargeman (Ordinary). Subsequently, vide order dated 14.7.2001 (Annexure P-10) issued by Executive

¶88

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶89

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 14 of 20

¶90

Engineer, Jind, recovery was also sought to be made from the petitioner to the effect that “ the excess payment w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to date may be recovered from the pay of Sh. Deen Dayal Singh Chargeman.” The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the lack of proper action on part of the respondents. It is my clear view that the entire dispute stands settled in the admitted fact that petitioner was discharging duties of Chargeman (Electrical). Clearly, therefore, work for Chargeman (Electrical) exists; which petitioner has been fulfilling. As such petitioner cannot be denied pay scale of the said post.

¶91

The Show Cause Notice dated 13.06.2001 (Annexure P-7) issued to the petitioner reads as follows: -

¶92

“In view of the above, letter of G.M./P, you are hereby served a notice of 15 days, regarding withdrawal of promotion orders issued vide this office No.1578-81/64E dated 14.12.1998. If you want to represent any thing in this regard, the same must be received within 15 days, failing which the orders of promotion would be withdrawn. DA/1 ”

¶93

The ‘letter of G.M./P’ referred to hereinabove is Annexure R- 1 which has been written by the General Manager/Projects, Irrigation Department, Haryana to the Superintending Engineer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Jind, and reads as under: -

¶94

“ Subject: -Submission of application by Shri Deen Dayal Singh Chargeman requesting correction in his promotion orders causing recurring financial loss.

¶95

Reference: Your letter No.485-88/12A dated 13.3.2001.

¶96

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶97

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 15 of 20

¶98

In this connection, you are hereby advised to take action for withdrawal the orders of Shri Deen Dayal Singh, Chargeman who has been treated/promoted as Chargeman (Electrical). However, due notice before withdrawal of promotion orders be given to the employee to avoid legal complication and call the explanation of the officer/official as to how he was treated/promoted as Chargeman/Electrical when the post does not exist in his Circle/Division.

¶99

The service book in respect of Shri Deen Dayal Singh, Chargeman is returned herewith.”

¶100

From all of the above facts, it is crystal clear established on record that petitioner has been working as Chargeman (Electrical) on the basis of orders issued by the respondents from time to time.

¶101

The aforenoted contentions of the respondents to the effect that - petitioner was not appointed by competent Authority and he was not appointed against sanctioned post - are liable to be rejected also on account of the fact that it is undisputed fact on record that feeder cadre for the post of Chargeman (Electrical) is electrician; whereas feeder cadre for post of Chargeman (Ordinary) is Fitter. It has not been denied by the respondent-Department that avenue of the promotion to the post of Chargeman (Ordinary) is from the category of Fitter/Operator; whereas avenue of promotion to the post of Chargeman (Electrical) is from the category of Electrician. It is undisputed fact on record that petitioner had been promoted as Electrician vide order dated 19.05.1972 w.e.f. 01.04.1972. Thereafter, petitioner was further promoted as Chargeman (Electrical), vide letter dated 05.03.1976 w.e.f.

¶102

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶103

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 16 of 20

¶104

01.03.1976. In fact, respondents themselves have fixed pay of the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical) vide order dated 30.6.1994; and then again vide order dated 15.01.1999 (Annexure P-1). Thus, for the respondents to submit that petitioner was Chargeman (Ordinary), is without basis. The reasons sought to be given by the respondents for withdrawal of order of promotion dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-6); as also recovery notice vide impugned orders Annexure P-2 and P-10 appear to be an after-thought and do not satisfy the principles of rationale, application on mind, justice, equity and fairness, which are inherent factors of service jurisprudence.

¶105

As noted above, as petitioner has admittedly been promoted as Chargeman (Electrical) from post of Electrician, he cannot be treated as Chargeman (Ordinary). This fact was pointed out to the respondentDepartment by respondent no.3 vide his letter dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure P-13) requesting respondent no.4 to sanction post of Chargeman (Electrical), to the Circle in which the petitioner was working as petitioner had been doing the work of Chargeman (Electrical). In the said letter dated 13.3.2001, respondent No.3 has further pointed out that feeder cadre for the post of Chargeman (Electrical) is electrician; whereas feeder cadre for post Chargeman (ordinary) was Fitter; and as petitioner had been promoted from post of Electrician, he could not be treated as Chargeman (Ordinary). The respondents in their written statement dated 18.2.2002 have not specifically denied these facts; and have only reiterated that petitioner was not promoted by competent

¶106

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶107

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 17 of 20

¶108

authority and that there is no sanctioned post available. The above stand taken by the respondents creates an incongruous position, contrary to their own stance.

¶109

It is also to be noted that petitioner has specifically averred in para 11 (d) of the present writ petition that even Service book of the petitioner carries entries to this effect which find mention at page No.10 of service-book Part I, Page 15-A of service book Part II. Even the Executive Engineer Drainage, Mechanical Division, Hisar by treating the designation of the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical) at page 12 of the service-book Part III, vide his office order No.3198-3200/12-A dated 30.6.1994, had granted pay scale of Rs.170-300 and Rs.1200-2400 w.e.f. 1.4.1979 and 1.1.1986 respectively. Thus, it is own admitted case of the respondent Department that the petitioner is working on the post Chargeman (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.3.1976.

¶110

Moreover, vide impugned order dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure P-2), the order of promotion dated 14.12.1998 designating the petitioner from Chargeman (Ordinary) to Chargeman (Electrical) was withdrawn with immediate effect. No reasons are contained in the order dated 04.07.2001 to justify the said withdrawal. Consequentially, vide order dated 14.7.2001/P-10, pay scale of the petitioner has also been withdrawn without assigning any reason or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is established position in law that where the employee is selected, promoted and/or appointed on the higher post to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a higher degree, then he

¶111

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶112

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 18 of 20

¶113

cannot be denied the pay of higher post. Definitely, the same cannot be withdrawn without affording any opportunity of hearing. As no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the order of reduction of pay scale/reversion, the said action of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice. No valid reasons have been furnished by the respondents for withdrawing pay scale given to the petitioner as Chargeman (Electrical). I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that withdrawal of pay scale amounts to reversion. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in numerous cases that such action of the Govt. in reopening the matter and making deductions from salary is wholly arbitrary and inequitable. Therefore, refixation of the pay of the petitioner after lapse of considerable time and consequent recovery cannot be sustained.

¶114

Further, the impugned order is also discriminatory as, other persons having the same qualification and performing the same duties namely Shri Suraj Parkash, Deepak Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Rattan Singh are drawing pay scale of Chargeman Electrical. Whereas Petitioner although having same qualification as the said persons and also performing the same duties and functions as are being performed by these persons, is being denied the said pay scale. As per established case law, an employee who is similarly situated, deserves the same pay as given to other employees. Respondents have also been unable to dispute that similarly situated persons are drawing higher pay scale than the petitioner. A very perfunctory, vague and general reply has been

¶115

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶116

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 19 of 20

¶117

given by learned State Counsel to the effect that details of the said persons have not been provided and therefore, no reply can be given. However, the said contention of the respondent-State is incorrect as the petitioner in his representation (Annexure P-3) has duly given sufficient detail of the similarly situated persons who are drawing higher pay scale.

¶118

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that persons junior to the petitioner are drawing higher pay scale. The petitioner has given specific instances of one Shri Bhagwan and Sairaju Deen who were appointed in the year 1977-78 as Chargeman and were regularised on 28.11.1983. The respondents have not specifically denied that the above said two persons and certain other persons junior to the petitioner are drawing more salary than the petitioner.

¶119

Further, it was not denied by learned State Counsel that it was never conveyed to the petitioner that post of Chargeman (Electrical) does not exist. It is also not denied that the respondents had been taking work of Chargeman (Electrical) from the petitioner. In any event, from 1.3.1976 till passing of impugned order dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure P- 2), respondents have been taking work of the Chargeman (Electrical) from the petitioner. As such, impugned action cannot sustain.

¶120

It has repeatedly been stated by learned State Counsel that petitioner has been promoted as Chargeman (Ordinary). The said contention is in total contradiction of the order of promotion dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure P-6). Despite repeated Court queries, learned Counsel for the State has not been able to refer to let alone produce any

¶121

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶122

CWP-15371-2001 (O&M) 20 of 20

¶123

order of promotion of the petitioner as Chargeman (Ordinary). No such order is attached even with the written statement.

¶124

Keeping in view the above discussion, the present Writ Petition is allowed ; and order dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner has been redesignated as Chargeman (Ordinary) from the post of Chargeman (Electrical) is quashed; and respondents are directed not to reduce the salary of the petitioner which he is entitled to draw as Chargeman (Electrical) as the petitioner is working as Chargeman

¶125

(Electrical) in the respondent-Department.

¶126

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶127

16.07.2026			(NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi			JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶128

DIVYANSHI 2026.07.21 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Deen Dayal Singh v. St of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deen Dayal Singh v. St 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Dharmender Sharma and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Himanshu Goyal and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mukesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sumit Vs State of Haryana and Others