Petitioner sought mandamus for unpaid salary/honorarium as Village Level Entrepreneur for 26 months under a Tri-Party Agreement. The court found material facts not set out and necessary respondents not properly impleaded, dismissed the petition with liberty to file afresh.
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.
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9693-2026 DECIDED ON: 10.04.2026
SANJIV KUMAR
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG Haryana with Ms. Amrita Singh, IAS, Development and Panchayats Department, Haryana
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 6, District Information Technology Society, Fatehabad, to forthwith release the salary/honorarium of the petitioner for the period March 2018 to June 2020 (26 months) (Annexure P- 3), which remains unpaid to the petitioner despite the petitioner having continuously worked as Village Level Entrepreneur (VLE) at the CSC established in Gram Sachivalaya, Gram Panchayat Dhani Majra, Block and District Fatehabad, and despite Respondent No. 5, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehabad, having duly submitted the Assessment Reports covering the said period to Respondent No. 6 in terms of the Tri-Party Agreement
MEENU 2026.04.17 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-9693-2026
-2-
dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-2), the non-payment thereof being illegal, arbitrary, in violation of the terms and conditions of the said Agreement, has caused severe financial hardship to the petitioner and that the respondents be further directed to pay the applicable penalty for delayed payment as stipulated under Article 6 of the Tri-Party Agreement; alongwith all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 10.04.2026 JUDGE Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No
MEENU 2026.04.17 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct release of unpaid salary/honorarium to the petitioner as VLE under a Tri-Party Agreement despite failure to disclose material facts and implead necessary respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjiv Kumar
State of Haryana and Others
Sandeep Moudgil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
