Single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of service and equal pay benefits. She directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order within six months.
Directions to respondents to consider petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-29610-2026
Page 1 of 4
IN THE HI G H COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
118 CW P -29610-2026
Dat e of Decision: 11.09.2026
Salo .… Petitioner
Versus
State of H a ryana and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocat e for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
RISHU KATARIA 2026.09.11 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent.
CWP-29610-2026
Page 2 of 4
posts unde r the doctrine of “Equal Pay fo r Equal Work” together with all consequen t ial benefits including pay fixati o n, annual increments, dearness allowance, continuity of service, notional seniority, arrears and all other admissible service benefits, along with int e rest @ 6% per annum from the date the a m ounts became due till the date o f actual payment. 2. Learned counsel for the pet i tioner inter alia submits that initially, t h e petitioner was engaged thro u gh HARTRON as Data Entry Operator v ide letter dated 11.01.2007 (A n nexure P-1) in the Department of School Education, Haryana and disc h arged her duties in the said Departme n t till 30.08.2011. Thereafter, th e petitioner was again engaged through H ARTRON on the same post vide letter dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-2) in the Directorate of T own and Country Planning, Haryana, a gainst sanctioned post on the b asis of past experience. Since then the p e titioner is working with the re s pondent-Department regularly, continuou s ly and to the satisfaction of res p ondent-Department till date. It is further s ubmitted that vide letter date d 09.03.2017 (Annexure P-5) it was ackno w ledged that the past service of the petitioner w.e.f. 11.01.2007 to 30.08.2 0 11 shall be treated as contin u ous. As such, the petitioner is entitled fo r regularization of her service i n view of law laid down by the Hon’ble A p ex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC online SC 3826. It is also submitted tha t case of the petitioner is also squarely c o vered by the ratio of a recen t judgment of this Court dated 12.05.202 6 (Annexure P-8) passed by a co - ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch o f writ petitions having lead case No. CWP-1770-2026 , titled as ‘Deepak Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others’. In this
RISHU KATARIA 2026.09.11 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent.
CWP-29610-2026 Page 3 of 4
regard, th e petitioner has also moved a r e presentation dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) before the respondent upo n the respondents. However, no response h a s been received, so far.
RISHU KATARIA 2026.09.11 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent.
CWP-29610-2026 Page 4 of 4
certified c o py of this order, while keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Ho n ’ble Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra) as well as judgment of this Co u rt in Deepak Singh’s case (supra) .
11.09.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA 2026.09.11 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be directed to regularize her service for equal pay benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jaggo vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶10
Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC online SC 3826 · Who else cites this
Deepak Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶10
Deepak Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others
Salo
State of Haryana
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
