Parveen Kumar Son of Shri Main Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Prayer in the present writ pet i tion filed under Articles 226 of the Const i tution of India is for issuan c e of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing replies dated 06.04.2018 and 06.07.2018 (Annexure s P-7 and P-27, respectively) s e nt by respondent No. 4 being passed by t he incompetent authority and c o ntrary to the law laid down by this Court i n Kailash Devi vs. State of Punjab and others, 2016(2) SCT 216 (Annexure P-29) whereby it has bee n held that any order is bound to passed by t he competent authority and the a ppointing authority in terms of Rule 6 re a d with Rule 14(1) and Appe n dix-C of the Haryana Public Works D e partment, Public Health Branch, Circle Cadre, Mechanical (Group-D) Service Rules, 1955, further c o ntrary to the law laid down by the Hon’b l e Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2016(4) SCT 641, which has been further follo w ed by this Court in case of Rupinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2017(3) SCT 173 (Annexure P-2), as well as ins t ructions of the Government of Haryana, General Administration Department (General Services-II

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CWP-23056-2018 -2-

¶16

Branch) d a ted 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-26 ) and 20.04.2018; AND further, for issuan c e of a direction to the respond e nt to grant minimum pay scale attached t o the post of Mali-cum-Chowki d ar along with D.A. of Class IV post i.e. R s.2550-55-2660-EB-60-3200 w . e.f. 01.01.1996 and revised to Rs.4440+ Grade Pay of Rs.1300 total R s .5740/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and further rev i sed w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

¶17

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has acknowledged that the present petition has been rendered infructuous. It is submitted that by way of filing the present petition, the petitioner is seeking ‘E q ual Pay for Equal Work’ i.e. b a sic minimum pay scale for the post held b y him. However, upon an enqu i ry conducted into the matter, it was found that now the petitioner is wor k ing through Haryana Kaushal Rozgar N i gam (HKRNL) in the Depart m ent since 01.07.2022 and is getting the benefits under the said Portal. As such, his claim for grant of ‘Equal Pa y for Equal Work’ i.e. basic m inimum pay scale for the post held by hi m is misconceived.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respo n dent-State has not disputed the aforesaid s u bmissions of learned counsel f o r the petitioner.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

In view of the facts noted ab o ve, no further order is required to be pass e d in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

20.07.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶22

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶23

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶24

RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Parveen Kumar Son of Shri Main Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar Son of Shri Main Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhateri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Saksham Rathore Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mahabir Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bhoopinder and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Balvinder Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another