IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 208 USHA SETHI STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA respondents to grant higher pay scale to the petitioner than the one her juniors; service rendered 2. promoted as Head Mistress in the Department but had foregone promotion. On that account standard pay scale in terms of instructions dated 08.02.1994 to that effect, which the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 juniors, however, had been on completion of ten as well as twenty yea been drawing higher pay. Further, he contended that after rendering service, the petitioner was regularly of Cutting and Tailoring Instructor pursuant to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH USHA SETHI Versus HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA None for the petitioner. Mr. Aakash Singla, Additional Advocate General, Hary TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia respondents to grant higher pay scale to the petitioner than the one ; further, a direction has been sought for counting service rendered by her towards seniority. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner was promoted as Head Mistress in the Department but had foregone On that account she was not found entitle standard pay scale in terms of instructions issued by the Finance Department dated 08.02.1994 to that effect, which was on the same lines as Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 owever, had been granted the benefit of higher standard pay scale on completion of ten as well as twenty years of service been drawing higher pay. Further, he contended that after rendering service, the petitioner was regularly appointed in the Department on the post of Cutting and Tailoring Instructor pursuant to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15928-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: May 25, 2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Additional Advocate General, Haryana. inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to grant higher pay scale to the petitioner than the one given to been sought for counting the ad hoc contended that the petitioner was promoted as Head Mistress in the Department but had foregone the she was not found entitled to grant of higher issued by the Finance Department on the same lines as Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998. Her the benefit of higher standard pay scale rs of service and, accordingly, had been drawing higher pay. Further, he contended that after rendering ad hoc appointed in the Department on the post of Cutting and Tailoring Instructor pursuant to a fresh selection through ...Petitioner s seeking a direction to the to ad hoc contended that the petitioner was the d to grant of higher issued by the Finance Department on the same lines as Rule 11 of . Her the benefit of higher standard pay scale accordingly, had ad hoc appointed in the Department on the post selection through JASPREET KAUR 2026.05.29 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-15928-2001 (O&M) -2- Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, in regular pay scale. Accordingly, she became part of the cadre only on joining service in terms of order dated 02.05.1972, Annexure P-3. The service rendered prior thereto was not counted towards seniority in terms of statutory service rules. The claim in that regard was, therefore, rejected by the Department vide office order dated 05.10.2000, which was never challenged. 3. The facts aforementioned are not in dispute, as the petitioner has not filed any counter-affidavit in that regard. 4. Apparently, the petitioner’s claim for higher pay scale has been rejected in terms of the applicable instructions dated 08.02.1994, followed by the ACP Rules, which cannot be taken exception to, nor have the instructions been impugned. Similarly, her claim for counting ad hoc service towards seniority has also not been accepted vide office order dated 05.10.2000, on the ground that there is no provision for extending such a benefit in the Service Rules. The order has not been challenged, and this Court is of the view that the benefit in violation of the Rules cannot be extended. The law in this regard stands settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & A.H.T.S. Association and another, 2000 (8) SCC 4. 5. In view thereof, finding no ground to entertain the petition, it stands dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 25, 2026 (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JASPREET KAUR 2026.05.29 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh