205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19300-2017 Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226- 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to compute the contract services w.e.f. 28.01.1998 to 25.07.2004 to the regular service of the petitioner and to release all the consequential benefits after count the contract service in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.26640 of 2023 titled as Ramesh Chand Yaduwanshi Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 02.07.2026 and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in Electronics Engineering on contract basis and he worked as such w.e.f. 28.01.1998 to 25.07.2004 as discernible from Annexure P-1. The unblemished work and conduct of the petitioner during the aforesaid period remained NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -2- satisfactory. On 03.08.2007 vide Annexure P-2 the petitioner was appointed on regular basis on the post of Lecturer. The petitioner had already qualified the Bachelor of Engineering way back in the year 1996 as discernible from Annexure P-3. On 12.03.2014, the petitioner represented to the respondent- Department for calculating the part time service rendered by the petitioner, however, no action was taken and his representation (Annexure P-4) remained unheeded. On 09.01.2017, the petitioner made another representation to respondent No.2 for considering his case but nothing has been done. 3. Learned State counsel is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the petitioners in Ramesh Chand Yaduwanshi’s case (supra), however, he submits that the claim of the petitioner is required to be rejected in terms of Rule 72 of Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016 as there is a gap of more than three years between the part time engagement of the petitioner and his regular appointment. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered even on facts by the judgment rendered by this Court in Ramesh Chand Yaduwanshi’s case (supra) in which the following was observed:- “8. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Department of Technical Education in the year 1997, and he served as such from 04.11.1997 till 25.07.2004, at Government Polytechnic. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the selection process issued vide advertisement No.01/2007, and he was selected as a NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -3- Lecturer in Computer Engineering on 03.08.2007. The petitioner has highlighted the past precedents of 03 employees whose details have been given in a tabulated form in Para No.16 (vi) of the writ petition and has also placed on record the Minutes of the Meeting (Annexure P-19), whereby vide Agenda Item No.3.4, the benefits of past service was extended to those 03 employees. The relevant portion of the said Minutes of the Meeting, which was duly approved in a subsequent meeting vide Annexure P-20, reads as under:- Agenda item No.3.4 Giving benefit of past service. It is proposed to give benefit of previous service in the department to newly recruited faculty members in the society, the details of the faculty are as follows:- 1 Sh. Sanjay Mehta Lecturer in Electrical Engg. joined on 07-08- 07 (A.N.) Worked in Govt. Poly. from 30.11.97 to 11.11.2002, 30.03.2004 to 06- 08-07 2 Sh. M.P. Singh Lecturer in Civil Engg. joined on 08-08-07 (08-08- 07) Worked in Govt. Poly. from 20.7.98 to 07-08-07 on adhoc basis 3 Sh. Rajesh Jindal Lecturer in Comm. Skills joined on 28-09-07 Worked in Govt. Poly. on adhoc basis from 25.7.98 to 11.11.2002, 21.11.03 to 27.9.07 These faculty members may give the benefit of service in the deptt. towards pay fixation and leave etc. NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -4- as per Punjab Civil Service Rules. Similar benefit has been given in other societies. Item is placed for consideration and decision. 9. Furthermore, Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I reads as under:- FIXATION OF INITIAL PAY 4.4. The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows:– (a) If he holds a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post– (i) when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purposes of rule 4.13) than these attaching to such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time-scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post; (ii) when appointment to the new post does not involve such assumption, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time-scale which is equal to his substantive pay in respect of the old post, or, if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference; and in either case will continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the time-scale of the old post or for the period after which an increment is earned in the time-scale of the new post, whichever is less. But if the minimum of the time-scale of the new post is higher than his substantive NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -5- pay in respect of the old post he will draw that minimum as initial pay; (iii) when appointment to the new post is made on his own request under rule 3.17 (a) and maximum pay in the time- scale of that post is less than his substantive pay in respect of the old post, he will draw that maximum as initial pay. Note. Omitted. Note. Omitted. (b) If the conditions prescribed in clause (a) are not fulfilled, he will draw as initial pay the minimum of the time-scale, on appointment in Government service in the case of member of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch), specialist doctors and on completion of probation in other cases: Provided both in cases covered by clause (a) and in cases, other than cases of re-employment after resignation or removal or dismissal from the public service, covered by clause (b), that if he either – (1) has previously held substantively or officiated in – (i) the same post, or (ii) a permanent or temporary post on the same time-scale, or (iii) a permanent post other than a tenure post or a temporary post (including a post in a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government) on an identical time-scale; or xx xx xx xx 10. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly indicates that there is no stipulation regarding any gap between ad hoc or NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -6- regular service for becoming eligible to avail the benefit of past service rendered on ad hoc basis. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Pal's case (supra) has considered the issue involved in the present case and observed as under:- 6. The case of petitioner has, however, been opposed and by way of preliminary objections, it has been pleaded that petitioner was wrongly given the benefit of ad hoc service towards increment in contravention of rules/instructions by the Chief Medical Officer, Faridabad by way of pay fixation as there was break in his ad hoc service and regular service. The pay of petitioner has now been refixed according to rules/instructions. The petitioner had been given necessary show cause notice and personal hearing by respondent No. 1 to recover the excess payment made to him due to wrong fixation of pay by the Chief Medical Officer Faridabad and, therefore, no legal right of his has been infringed. The reply on merits is also on the same ground and by specifically pleading the break in service. 7. Petitioner filed additional affidavit as directed by the Motion Bench specifically pleading that the Government had given benefit of ad hoc service to Dr. Hari Singh Yadav, Dr. Subodh Kumar, Dr. Likhi Ram and Dr. Mangal Ram even though all of them had break in their service, that is, there was some gap between the date when they were in ad hoc service and the date when they were given regular appointment. The detail of break in each case has been separately given. There was a break in service of Dr. Hari Singh Yadav from October 23, 1977 to August 15, 1978 i.e. nine months and 24 days. Break in the service of Dr. Subodh Kumar was for a period of about ten NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -7- months whereas break in service of Dr. Likhi Ram was for a period of two months and that of Dr. Mangal Ram was for a period of nearly two years. No rejoinder controverting the facts contained in the additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 8. The only contention raised by Mr. Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, is that the instructions, Annexure P-8, talk of absorption of an employee Government department, thus, pre-supposing that there is no break in service whereas admittedly, there was break in service of petitioner even though for a period of nearly two months. Even though, prima facie, the contention raised by Mr. Monga does not sound plausible as it is wholly un-understandable as to how a person who might have continued in service by getting an order of regularisation without proper selection could be better placed than a person who occupied regular post following proper selection by the competent authority, yet I do not wish to go into this matter and determine it conclusively as the relief can be granted to petitioner on the sole ground that persons similarly situate have been given better treatment and the petitioner has been discriminated. Petitioner on affidavit has pleaded that Government has granted benefit of ad hoc service towards fixation of pay despite break in service with regard to Dr. Hari Singh Yadav, Dr. Subodh Kumar, Dr. Likhi Ram and Dr. Mangal Ram. The break in the case of Dr. Mangal Ram was for a period of nearly two years. If the benefit of Rule 4.4(b) of PCSR, Volume I, Part I was given to the persons aforesaid even though there was break in their service far more in point of time than that of petitioner, the same benefit has to NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-19300-2017 -8- be granted to petitioner as well. The Government cannot discriminate between the persons equally situate and order Annexure P-7 treating petitioner differently than that of his counterparts would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for that reason alone the impugned order, Annexure P-7, deserves to be set aside and is hereby quashed.” 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend to the petitioner the benefit of the period of service rendered by him on contractual/ad hoc basis from 28.01.1998 to 25.07.2004 for the purpose of increments and all other consequential service benefits in terms of the judgments rendered by this Court in Jai Pal Singh vs State of Haryana, 1994(2) SCT 527, CWP-13133-1989 titled as Dr. Muni Lal, Ayuvedic Medical Officer vs The State of Haryana and another, decided on 16.12.2009 and Ramesh Chand Yaduwanshi’s case (supra). Necessary consequential orders shall be passed and all admissible benefits shall be released to the petitioner within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.16 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh