Dismissed¶104

State of Haryana and Others v. Neha Bansal

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2026LPA/1134/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHM contractual employees; 6th Pay Commission salary; Service Bye-Laws 2018; freezing of benefits; Finance Department re-approval; successor authority cannot reopen implemented decision; Rs. 60 crore approval-cap argument rejected; 'freezing' equals keeping in abeyance/withdrawal; Madan Lal Chopra 1971(1) SLR 629; Ram Niwas 2006 (3) SCT 834; Neha Bansal v. State of Haryana; CWP No. 3472 of 2025; LPA-1134-2026 dismissed; Rs. 245 crore released 04.02.2026; State implementation letter dated 24.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants. The appeal was dismissed and the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 17.11.2025 in CWP No. 3472 of 2025 (setting aside the freeze of 6th Pay Commission salary benefits to NHM contractual employees) stands; pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶104

State of Haryana and Others Vs Neha Bansal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶104

Issue for consideration

What salary is to be paid to the contractual employees working under the NHM. +3 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Once a decision has been taken by the competent authority and the same has been implemented, a successor authority cannot review or reopen such decision to the detriment of those who have acquired benefits thereunder.

¶69

Key takeaways

The plea of the appellants that no approval had ever been granted for implementing the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission in favour of the contractual employees of the NHM cannot be accepted, since the direction to freeze benefits under the 2018 Bye-laws itself mentioned the description of the letter dated 29.12.2017, indicating an intent to reconsider rather than absence of approval.ratio¶64
An increase in expenditure on account of passage of time beyond the initially sanctioned Rs. 60 crores has to be treated as a deemed approval for enhancing the budget, and not as a handle for the State to reconsider afresh whether the 6th Pay Commission recommendations are to be implemented qua the contractual employees or withdrawn.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsimran Singh Sethi and Amarinder Singh Grewal, JJ.; oral judgment delivered by Sethi J.) dismisses the State of Haryana's LPA against the Single Judge's judgment dated 17.11.2025 in CWP No. 3472 of 2025, which had set aside the Finance Department's communication dated 27.06.2024 freezing salary benefits of the 6th Pay Commission extended to contractual employees of the National Health Mission under the Service Bye-Laws, 2018. Held: (i) By U.O. dated 22.12.2017 the Finance Department agreed to Sixth Pay Commission pay scales for NHM contractual employees on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan pattern, with estimated additional liability of Rs. 60 crore per annum, subject to approval of other competent authorities; the 2018 Bye-Laws were approved by all competent authorities vide letter dated 29.12.2017 and operated from 01.01.2018, benefits flowing for almost six years. (ii) Once a competent authority's decision has been taken and implemented, a successor authority cannot review or reopen it to the detriment of those who acquired benefits thereunder — relying on The General Manager, Northern Railway v. Madan Lal Chopra, 1971(1) SLR 629 and Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2006 (3) SCT 834. (iii) The plea that no approval was ever granted fails, the freeze direction itself reciting the 29.12.2017 approval letter. (iv) Increased expenditure beyond the original Rs. 60 crore estimate is a deemed approval for budget enhancement, not a ground for withdrawal. (v) Withholding salary pending 'fresh approval' is not 'freezing' but 'keeping in abeyance', i.e., withdrawal, causing prejudice to employees. (vi) Reconsideration solely because fresh Finance Department approval is needed for release of fresh budget rests on incorrect facts, is contrary to settled principles, and cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed; pending civil miscellaneous applications disposed of. Whether reportable: No.

¶1

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

119

¶4

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision :16.07.2026

¶5

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶6

...Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dr. NEHA BANSAL ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate and Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. * * *

¶12

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶13

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3472 of 2025 and connected matters, by which, the action of the respondents-State (appellants herein) in freezing the benefit of salary payable in terms of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission, which had been extended to the contractual employees of the National Health Mission (hereinafter referred to as 'NHM'), implemented through the State Health Society, Haryana , on the pattern of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, was withdrawn vide order/letter dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-11), was set-aside.

¶14

It may be noticed that the issue in the present appeal is as to what salary is to be paid to the contractual employees working under the RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶16

NHM. The Governing Body of the NHM framed the Service Bye-laws, 2018, whereby the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission were adopted and made applicable to the contractual employees under NHM. Accordingly, the contractual employees were paid salary in terms of the said Service Bye-laws of 2018 framed by NHM, herein referred to as ‘2018 Bye-Laws’.

¶17

The contractual employees continued to receive salary in accordance with the terms and conditions of Service Bye-laws, 2018, till the Finance Department issued a communication dated 27.06.2024, directed that the extending of the salaries to the contractual employees of the NHM as per 2018 Bye-Laws needs to be re-approved by the Finance Department and till such fresh approval is accorded, the payment of salary in terms of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which was also made part of the service Bye-Laws, 2018, should be freezed.

¶18

Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, action taken by the State as well as the authority within the State/NHM against the contractual employees and their salary which was being given keeping in view the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission as adopted vide 2018 Bye-Laws was stopped till a fresh approval was granted by the Finance Department. The communication dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-11), along with the consequential communications dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-12), 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-13), 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-14) and 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-15) issued by the competent authority to all the Civil Surgeons in Haryana directing that in all districts no new benefits of service Bye-Laws, 2018, given, after date of Finance Department’s instructions dated 27.06.2024 be withdrawn immediately were challenged before this Court by way of the writ petitions.

¶19

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶21

The stand taken by the respondent-State before the learned Single Judge was that, while extending the benefit of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission to the contractual employees while framing 2018 Bye-Laws, the approval of the Finance Department was not taken, and, it was decided by the Finance Department to seek fresh approval and till approval is granted by the Finance Department, the benefit of the salary to the contractual employees based upon the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission cannot be extended and grant of such benefits has to be halted till the approval is received by the Finance Department.

¶22

The learned Single Judge considered the issue and has held that the benefit which was being extended to the contractual employees qua their salary based upon the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission was valid as the same had also been incorporated in the Service Bye-laws, 2018 and was given after taking requisite approval from all the concerned and therefore, freezing the grant of such benefit by the State was not valid and was not based upon the correct facts.

¶23

As there was an interim order in favour of the contractual employees and they continued to receive salary in accordance with the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission despite the letters issued on 27.06.2024 and 29.10.2024 and therefore, learned Single Judge held that the employees are entitled to continue receiving the salary which they had been drawing prior to the issuance of the impugned letters. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the State.

¶24

Learned State counsel submits that the findings given by the learned Single Judge that all the required approvals have already been obtained before the benefits of salary was extended to the contractual

¶25

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶27

employees based upon the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission is factually incorrect as, no such approval was granted by the Finance Department for extending the said benefit and, therefore, the contractual employees could not have been granted salary keeping in view the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission .

¶28

Learned Counsel for the respondents-State further submits that the decision taken by the Finance Department, dated 20.12.2017 (P-3), which was relied upon by the learned Single judge was not within the knowledge of the Finance Department and therefore, the same cannot be made a basis for extending the benefit of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission to the contractual employees. Hence, till the Finance Department reconsiders the issue and grants the necessary approval, the benefit of salary based upon the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission cannot be extended to the respondents who are working on contractual basis in NHM. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect and the same may kindly be set-aside and the State is directed to decide as to whether the said benefit is admissible to the respondents or not by giving due consideration.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

¶30

It may be noticed that the benefit of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission was extended to the contractual employees only after the Service Bye-laws were framed in the year 2018. Therefore, the Bye-laws so framed, have to be noticed and discussed so as to arrive at conclusion that whether the 2018 Bye-laws which prescribed the grant of salary to the contractual employees based upon the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission is correct or not and whether the requisite approval of the

¶31

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶33

Finance Department and other competent authorities had been obtained for extending the said benefits to the contractual employees working under the National Health Mission (NHM).

¶34

On 22.12.2017, the department of the Finance issued the following letter:-

¶35

“Subject: Regarding Service Bye Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana, 2018.

¶36

****

¶37

Finance Department agrees to the proposal of Administrative Department to amend the service Bye-Laws of contractual employees of NHM to grant remuneration/pay scales as per Sixth Pay Commission on the pattern of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan to National Health Mission employees with an estimated additional financial liability of Rs.60.00 Crore per annum, subject to the condition that Administrative Department will also get it approved from all other competent authorities like Chief Secretary (General Administration Department), Haryana Public Service Commission, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Legal Remembrance and Council of Minister's if required.

¶38

The verified pay scales are annexed at appendix "A"

¶39

-sd-

¶40

Superintendent FD-II for Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Finance Department.

¶41

¶42

The Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Health Department.

¶43

U.O. No. 39000-1FD-II/2017 Dated: 22.12.2017”

¶44

A bare perusal of the above would show that the Finance Department agreed to the proposal of the Health Department which administers the State/National Health Mission, for extending the revised pay scales to the contractual employees in terms of the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission. Not only the said proposal was approved, but the additional financial expenditure required for implementing the same was also

¶45

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -6-

¶47

sanctioned.

¶48

The only condition imposed in the above-reproduced letter was that the competent authority should amend the Service Bye-laws and thereafter implement the pay structure in terms of the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission, after obtaining the approval of all the competent authorities concerned.

¶49

Subsequently, vide letter dated 29.12.2017 (Annexure P-4), the Service Bye-laws governing the service conditions of the contractual employees of the State Health Mission, i.e. State Health Mission Haryana Service Bye-laws, 2018, were approved by all the competent authorities, including the Finance Department. The relevant letter dated 29.12.2017 is as under:

¶50

“ From Mission Director, NHM, Paryatan Bhawan, Bay No. 55-58, Sec-2, Panchkula, Haryana To All Civil Surgeons, Haryana Memo No. ADMIN/NHM/A1/2017-18/4361-81 Dated: 29.12.17

¶51

Subject: - Regarding the "Service Bye-Laws governing the conditions of Service of the Contractual Employees of State Health Mission, Haryana 2018".

¶52

Reference to the subject cited above.

¶53

2. Service Bye-Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana 2018" has been approved by Competent Authorities in concurrence with the Finance Department U.O.No.39000-1FD-11/2017 dated 22.12.2017.

¶54

3. The above mentioned Bye-Laws will come in effect from 1st January, 2018.

¶55

4. A copy of "Service Bye-Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana 2018' is enclosed herewith for necessary action.

¶56

-sd-

¶57

Director/Admin,

¶58

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -7-

¶60

NHM, Haryana

¶61

Dated, Panchkula the 29^th December, 2017”

¶62

Thereafter, the Service Bye-laws were made operational, and the contractual employees were granted the benefit of the revised pay scales based upon the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.

¶63

From the year 2018 till June 2024, i.e., for almost six years, the employees continued to receive the said benefits without there being any objection from any department till the letter dated 27.06.2024 came into operation.

¶64

Though it is being argued on behalf of the appellants that the Finance Department did not had the knowledge of the letter dated 22.12.2017 or the letter approving the Bye-Laws of 2018 on 29.12.2017 but, while directing that the benefit being given under the service Bye-laws of the year 2018 should be freezed, the description of the said letter dated 29.12.2017 has also been mentioned. This clearly indicates that the Finance Department intended to reconsider the issue and the plea of the appellants that no approval had ever been granted for implementing the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission in favour of the contractual employees of the NHM cannot be accepted.

¶65

The question which arises is whether, once, a competent authority i.e. Finance Department has taken a decision to approve the Service Bye-laws of the year 2018 which are based upon the grant of the salary of the contractual employees on the basis of the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission and the said Service Bye-laws have already been approved by all the competent authorities before the 2018 Bye-Laws were

¶66

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -8-

¶68

implemented, can there be a reconsideration of the issue afresh and that too to the detriment of the beneficiary who had been getting the said benefit continuously for a period of six years.

¶69

It is a settled principle of law that once a decision has been taken by the competent authority and the same has been implemented, a successor authority cannot review or reopen such decision to the detriment of those who have acquired benefits thereunder. The reliance in this regard may be placed upon the judgments passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1969, titled as ‘The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Madan Lal Chopra, Luggage Guard, Northern Railway and Ors’. 1971(1) SLR 629.

¶70

The relevant paragraph of judgment passed in Madan Lal Chopra, Luggage Guard, Northern Railway’s case (Supra) is as under:-

¶71

“We regret that we are unable to agree with the contention; raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The principle laid down in the authority reported in R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 Privy Council 27, would equally apply to the facts of the present case. In that case it was held that:

¶72

“In a case in which after Government officials, duly competent and duly authorised in that behalf, have arrived honestly at one decision, their successors in office, after the decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation, cannot purport to enter upon a reconsideration of the matter and to arrive at another and totally different decision.””

¶73

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶74

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -9-

¶75

In another judgement passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Niwas versus State of Haryana and others 2006 (3) SCT 834 has held that firstly, in law there is administrative hierarchy which has to be respected and any successor officer cannot set aside the orders passed by his predecessor.

¶76

Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to dispute the aforesaid settled proposition of law. Hence, it is on record that the service bye-laws of 2018 was approved by all the authorities concerned and then implemented, the decision of the Finance Department qua reconsideration of the said approval subsequently is contrary to the settled principle of law and therefore, the setting aside of such reconsideration and withholding of the benefit on the basis of such reconsideration as issued under Letter dated 24.06.2024, has rightly been adjudicated by the learned Single judge to be perverse to the settled principle of law so as to set-aside the same.

¶77

Learned State counsel further submits that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Service Bye-laws, 2018 were approved in December 2017, such approval was only with respect to expenditure of Rs. 60 crores and not beyond that amount and hence, any increase in expenditure thereafter required fresh approval from the Finance Department.

¶78

It may be noticed that once, at the time of the initial approval, the expenditure to be incurred while granting the benefit keeping in view the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission to be implemented qua the contractual employees which was of Rs. 60 croes, even if the same is increased on account of passage of time, the same has to be treated as a RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -10-

¶80

deemed approval for enhancing the budget rather than, giving a handle to the State to reconsider the total issue afresh that whether the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission is to be implemented qua the contractual employees or needs to be withdrawn.

¶81

Nothing prevented the Finance Department to approve the extra budget required for implementing a decision which was taken in year 2017 when the budget of Rs. 60 Crores was sanctioned. An increase in expenditure cannot be treated as a ground for withdrawing the approval already granted to implement the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission especially when the letter dated 27.12.2019 does not recite that upon addition to the financial expenditure, approval so granted will be reconsidered.

¶82

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the benefits granted under the Service Bye-laws, 2018 have not been withdrawn but have merely been "freezed".

¶83

On being asked that whether, during the pendency of the fresh approval, the contractual employees continued to receive the salary in terms of the 6th Pay Commission as approved under 2018 Bye-Laws or whether the benefit had been withdrawn so as to make recovery from them. Learned State counsel fairly submitted that the word " freezing " would mean that, till fresh approval is granted by the Finance Department, the respondentscontractual employees will not receive salary based upon the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.

¶84

We are of the considered opinion that said action will not come under the definition of “ Freezing ”, rather the same will come under the definition of “keeping in abeyance” which actually amounts to withdrawing

¶85

the said benefits till the fresh approval is granted. Such action will cause RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶86

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M) -11-

¶87

prejudice to the contractual employees by depriving them of benefits which they had continuously enjoyed for the last six years prior to the issuance of the impugned communication dated 24.06.2024 and that too as per 2018 ByeLaws framed and approved by the State.

¶88

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that once all the required approvals for extending the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission had been granted by the Finance Department as well as by the other competent authorities before the implementation of the Service Bye-laws, 2018, reconsideration of the same at the hands of the State is not permissible only on the ground that a fresh approval of the Finance Department is needed for release of fresh budget. The same is based upon an incorrect facts and contrary to the settled principles of law. Consequently, the same cannot be sustained.

¶89

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that though the present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but vide a letter dated 24.03.2026, the State have already taken a decision to implement the judgment. The said letter reads as under:

¶90

“Subject:- Permission for granting benefits to all the remaining employees of NHM Haryana of interim directions on the same terms & conditions issued in CWP 3472 of 2025 titled as Neha Bansal & others passed by the Hon'ble High Court to the petitioner in main court case/bunch matter.

¶91

The Administrative Department is advised to take necessary action, with the approval of the competent authority, in accordance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 3472 of 2025 titled Neha Bansal & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, as well as the directions issued by the Accountant General, Haryana in the matter.

¶92

Further, with regard to the release of funds, it is submitted that the Finance Department, vide U.O. No. 1/49/2022-IFD1/1093 dated 04.02.2026, has already released an amount of 245.00 crore through diversion for clearing pending payments of employees, which had arisen due to the freezing of benefits under the Service Bye-laws.

¶93

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶94

CM-2776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1134-2026 (O&M)

¶95

-12-

¶96

-sd-

¶97

Superintendent FD-ll for Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Finance Department

¶98

¶99

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Health & Family Welfare Department

¶100

UO.No. 1/1/2023-1FDII/3466

¶101

Dated:-24.03.2026.”

¶102

Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to dispute the aforesaid letter dated 24.03.2026. However, he submits that the implementation of the same is subject to the decision of the present appeal.

¶103

It may be noticed that no such condition has been mentioned in the said letter dated 24.03.2026. Be that as it may, since the present appeal has been considered and decided on merits, and hence, in view of the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶104

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶105

Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand

¶106

disposed of.

¶107

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶108

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

¶109

July 16, 2026 Riya

¶110

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No

¶111

RIYA 2026.07.22 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 17.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3472 of 2025 and connected matters, setting aside the State's action (order/letter dated 27.06.2024, Annexure P-11) freezing/withdrawing salary benefits of the 6th Pay Commission payable to NHM contractual employees under the Service Bye-Laws, 2018.¶13
Single Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh · 17.11.2025
Prior proceeding
Finance Department, vide U.O. No. 39000-1FD-II/2017 dated 22.12.2017, agreed to amend the service Bye-Laws of NHM contractual employees to grant remuneration/pay scales as per the Sixth Pay Commission on the pattern of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, with an estimated additional financial liability of Rs. 60.00 crore per annum, subject to approval from other competent authorities.¶37
Prior proceeding
Vide Memo dated 29.12.2017, the Mission Director, NHM, informed all Civil Surgeons that the Service Bye-Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana 2018 had been approved by Competent Authorities in concurrence with the Finance Department (U.O. No.39000-1FD-11/2017 dated 22.12.2017), to come into effect from 1st January, 2018.¶53
Prior proceeding
Finance Department communication dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-11) directed that extension of 2018 Bye-Laws salaries to NHM contractual employees needed re-approval, and that payment of salary per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations be frozen until fresh approval was accorded.¶17
Prior proceeding
Consequential communications dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-12), 27.11.2024 (Annexure P-13), 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-14) and 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-15) were issued by the competent authority to all Civil Surgeons in Haryana directing that new Bye-Laws benefits given after 27.06.2024 be withdrawn immediately.¶18
Prior proceeding
The communication dated 27.06.2024 and the consequential communications were challenged before this Court by way of writ petitions.¶18
Prior proceeding
Stand of the respondent-State before the learned Single Judge: the approval of the Finance Department had not been taken while framing the 2018 Bye-Laws, and the salary benefit was to be halted until fresh Finance Department approval was received.¶21
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge held that the 6th Pay Commission salary benefit, incorporated in the Service Bye-laws, 2018 after requisite approvals from all concerned, was valid, and that freezing of the benefit by the State was not valid and not based upon the correct facts.¶22
Prior proceeding
An interim order operated in favour of the contractual employees, who continued to receive salary per the 6th Pay Commission recommendations despite the letters dated 27.06.2024 and 29.10.2024; the learned Single Judge held the employees entitled to continue receiving the salary drawn prior to the impugned letters.¶23
Prior proceeding
Hence, the present appeal (LPA) was filed by the State.¶23

Cite this judgement

State of Haryana and Others v. Neha Bansal, LPA/1134/2026 (P&H), decided on 16 July 2026.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited3

The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Madan Lal Chopra, Luggage Guard, Northern Railway and OrsRelied on¶20
R. T. Rangachari v. Secretary of StateReferred¶71
Ram Niwas versus State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶75

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Service Bye Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana, 2018Service Bye Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana, 2018

View all statutes

Procedural history10

Judgment dated 17.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3472 of 2025 and connected matters, setting aside the State's action (order/letter dated 27.06.2024, Annexure P-11) freezing/withdrawing salary benefits of the 6th Pay Commission payable to NHM contractual employees under the Service Bye-Laws, 2018.Single Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh · 17.11.2025
Finance Department, vide U.O. No. 39000-1FD-II/2017 dated 22.12.2017, agreed to amend the service Bye-Laws of NHM contractual employees to grant remuneration/pay scales as per the Sixth Pay Commission on the pattern of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, with an estimated additional financial liability of Rs. 60.00 crore per annum, subject to approval from other competent authorities.
Vide Memo dated 29.12.2017, the Mission Director, NHM, informed all Civil Surgeons that the Service Bye-Laws governing the conditions of Service of the contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana 2018 had been approved by Competent Authorities in concurrence with the Finance Department (U.O. No.39000-1FD-11/2017 dated 22.12.2017), to come into effect from 1st January, 2018.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Harsimran Singh Sethi and Amarinder Singh Grewal

Parties & counsel

State of Haryana and Others v. Neha Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Others v. Neha Bansal

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

The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (Now Hsvp) and Others Vs Shakuntla and Another

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Sarla

Municipal Corporation Batala and Another Vs Deepak Kumar and Others

Mahabir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep Santosh Vs National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra & Ors.