CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 1 of 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Shweta Saini and another ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana, *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby quashing of the impugned orders dated 13.06.2024 Annexures P-17 & P-17/A; and further directing the respondents to grant the regular pay scale and other allowances to the petitioners by granting them benefit of entire services from 08.01.2014, w.e.f. the dates they completed 5 years service in terms of Bye-Law 13.3 of the State Health Mission, Haryana, Contractual Employees Service Bye-Laws, 2018 Annexure P-1. 2. Brief factual background of the case in chronological order is as follows: - November 2013: In November 2013, Advertisement (Annexure P-1/A) was issued, whereby applications were invited for engagement on DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 2 of 18 contract basis for various posts in District Health and Family Welfare Societies of District Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘DHFWS’). The petitioners had applied for the post of Pharmacist. Vide Merit List dated nil (Annexure P-1/B), petitioners were selected as Pharmacists. 06.01.2014: Consequentially, Appointment Letters dated 06.01.2014 (Annexures P-2 and P-2(i)) respectively were issued to the petitioners hiring them under the National Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred to as ‘NRHM’) on contract basis. 08.01.2014: Pursuant thereto, petitioners joined on 08.01.2014 in NRHM, Civil Hospital, Panipat. 01.04.2015: Vide order dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P-3), petitioners were rehired as Pharmacist and posted at Bhim Sain Sachar General Hospital w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2015 under National Health Mission/ NHM programme, at Panipat. 30.06.2015: Vide letter dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure P-4), petitioners were relieved from duty on 30.06.2015 A.N. And posted to the Mukhyamantri Muft Ilaaj Yojana/MMMIY. 02.07.2015: Vide order dated 02.07.2015 (Annexure P-4(i)), petitioners were rehired and again posted at MMMIY. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this manner, petitioners were transferred/rehired from time to time, vide various orders, and from one Scheme to another. It is submitted that dispute arose when candidates who were below the petitioners in the Merit List, were placed in higher pay scale, which was two times more DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 3 of 18 than the pay drawn by the petitioners. By way of example, learned counsel for the petitioner points out case of one Vikas Kumar who was at Sr. 3 in the Merit List (Annexure P-1/B) (at page 45 of the paper- book), who was drawing salary of Rs.44,995 for the month of February 2024 as evident from Salary Statement dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P- 5); whereas petitioner had drawn salary of only about Rs.14,000/- for February 2024 as evident from her Bank Account Statement (Annexure P-6). When the petitioners discovered this pay disparity between similarly placed and same cadre employees, they requested the respondents to grant the same benefits. However, the respondents refused to do so by stating that benefit of the Service Bye-Laws of 2018 (Annexure P-1) can be given only to those employees, who had worked continuously under NRHM Scheme for 5 years. Ld. counsel contends that the said statement of the respondents in denying pay scale to the petitioners is not maintainable as it is based on a misinterpretation of the Bye-Laws. In this regard, ld. counsel refers to Rule 13.2 and 13.3 of the Service Bye-Laws of 2018. 4. It is submitted that the ambiguity, if any, was further clarified by the Mission Director, NHM, Haryana, vide letter dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure P-14) issued to all Civil Surgeons, Haryana. Learned counsel contends that therefore, the sole reason given by the respondents for acting in arbitrary and discriminatory manner, does not stand scrutiny. 5. Accordingly, petitioners had previously filed CWP-9843-2024 titled as Shweta Saini and another vs. State of Haryana and others; DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 4 of 18 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure P-16) on the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents that representation made by the petitioners shall be considered and decided. It is submitted that pursuant thereto impugned orders dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure P-17 and P-17-A) have been respectively passed in the case of the petitioners rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the said action of the respondents is unsustainable on account of the fact that in view of the above noted facts, it is clear that petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale as similarly situated persons belonging to the same cadre are getting. Hence, impugned action is arbitrary and discriminatory and, violative to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 6. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed and: “ Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 13.06.2024 Annexures P-17 & P-17/A further directing the respondents to grant the regular pay scale and other allowances to the petitioners by granting them benefit of entire services from 08.01.2024 2014, w.e.f. the dates they completed 5 years service in terms of Bye-Law 13.3 of the State Health Mission, Haryana, Contractual Employees Service Bye-Law, 2018 Annexure P-1.” DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 5 of 18 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and stated that in November 2013 various posts were advertised by District Health and Family Welfare Society Panipat by consolidated advertisement (Annexure R-1), in which 6 posts of pharmacist were advertised. Out of six posts two posts of pharmacists were of Civil Hospital Panipat and four posts were meant for Urban Health Centre, Panipat. Both the petitioners applied and were selected. The petitioner No.1 was selected at merit No.1 and petitioner No.2 was selected at merit No.2. It is submitted that there was no vacant post of pharmacist under National Rural Health Mission/ NRHM at the time of advertisement and selection for above mentioned posts. Though both the petitioners were higher in merit, so they opted to work at Civil Hospital Panipat against two vacant posts under the administrative control of Health Department, Haryana keeping in mind the future prospects of regularization by the Haryana Government. The salaries were also paid through Swasthya Kalyan Samiit (User Fee) of Civil Hospital Panipat as per directions given in letter No.DHS(HMD)- 2013/984-1014 dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure R-2) and never from NRHM funds. It was a bonafide clerical error in the first appointment letter where it was mentioned as the appointment is under NRHM, however, in subsequent years, error was rectified and it was done under Mukhyamantri Muft Ilaaj Yojna/MMMIY. Both the petitioners worked under Mukhyamantri Muft Ilaaj Yojna being run by the Health DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 6 of 18 Department Haryana Government. So, upshot of above-mentioned facts is that both the petitioners worked under Mukhyamantri Muft Ilaaj Yojna since 8.1.2014 to 2.1.2020 and not under the NRHM. It is submitted that therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of regular pay scale and other allowances as claimed. 8. On a Court query, as to why the said pay scale has been accorded to the 3 other persons who were on lower merit than the petitioners, learned counsel for the State has no reply. 9. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 10. Vide Advertisement (Annexure P-1/A), 6 posts of Pharmacist were advertised. The said advertisement has been issued by the District Health & Family Welfare Society, Panipat. Qualification for the post of Pharmacist was D.Pharma/B.Pharma registered with Haryana State Pharmacy Council. As petitioners fulfilled the said qualification, they duly applied. Six persons, including the two petitioners were selected against the six posts as Pharmacist as per following Merit List (Annexure P-1/B): - Sr. No. Name Total marks 1 Shweta Saini 66.77 2 Jyoti Rani 65.82 3 Vikas Kumar 64.53 4 Ravinder 64.43 5 Kuldeep Rattewal 63.45 6 Rakesh Kumar 63.03 DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 7 of 18 11. Thus, it is clear that both the petitioners are at merit position, one and two. Pursuant thereto, letter of appointment dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) was issued in the case of petitioner No.1; wherein it is clearly mentioned as follows: - “Subject: Hiring of Pharmacist under NRHM on contract basis. Reference you application on subject noted above. On the basis of selection made by selection committee you are hereby hired on contract basis as Pharmacist on consolidated salary of Rs. 10340/- per month under NRHM up to 31st March 2014 from the date of joining. You are hereby directed to report for duty to Civil Surgeon cum Chairman DHFW Society, Panipat.” (Emphasis added) 12. Similar letter dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-2 (i)) was issued in the case of petitioner No.2 Jyoti Rani, posting her under the NRHM. 13. Thereafter, vide letter dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P-3), issued by Civil Surgeon cum-Chairman, District Health & Family Welfare Society, Panipat, petitioner No.1 was rehired stating as follows: - “Sub: Re hiring of contractual staff under NHM. You are hereby Re hired as Pharmacist and posted at Bhim Sain sachar General hospital w.e.f 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2015 under NHM programme, Panipat. You are directed to report to the concerned Dy. CS./MS/SMO/MO of your institution In- charge for joining the duty.” (Emphasis added) DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 8 of 18 Vide subsequent letters dated 30.6.2015 (P-3(i)) and 2.7.2015 (P-3(ii)), petitioners were posted at MMMIY. It is not disputed that similar letters were issued in case of petitioner No.2. 14. Undisputedly as per the Service Bye-laws of 2018 (Annexure P-1), in Section 13 thereof, it is stipulated as follows: - “13. Fixation of Remuneration/ Basic Pay and Compensatory allowances:- 13.1 Remuneration of Specialists- All specialists shall be entitled to consolidated remuneration as prescribed in appendix "A" during the period of contractual appointment. 13.2 Remuneration of contractual employees other than specialists upto First 5 years: (i) Contractual employees other than specialists shall be entitled to existing remuneration or entry level remuneration, whichever is higher as prescribed in Appendix A up to first five years' satisfactory service, (ii) Plus medical allowance of Rs.500/- per month or coverage under ESI Scheme, as the case may be (iii) An enhancement shall be admissible @ 5% of basic pay on- a) 1st July subject to completion of minimum 6 months' or more qualifying service up to 30th June of the current calendar year; or b) 1st January subject to completion of minimum 6 months' or more qualifying service up to 31st December of the preceding calendar year” DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 9 of 18 15. The said bye-laws were further clarified by the respondents themselves vide Clarification Memo dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure P-14), which reads as funder: - “Subject: Regarding Clarification of fixation of pay/remuneration of the employees working under NHM as per the provision in Service Bye Laws governing the conditions of service of the NHM Contractual employees of State Health Mission, Haryana, 2018. With reference to the subject cited above. 2. You are instructed to get the pay/remuneration fixed of the employees working under NHM, as per provision in bye laws, subject to completion of Performa 'A' in all respects alongwith relevant documents/records, already sent to you vide letter no.4576-96 dated 04.01.2018. Sr. No. Queries raised by Districts Clarification 1. Whether past service benefit of NHM shall be given to the Employees who have joined from one post to another post, from one program to another, from one facility to another whether inter district or intra district under NHM Haryana Yes, provided the employee was previously working against the approved post in RoP under NHM. However the gap between the last working day of previous post and date of joining one new post should not exceed the prescribed period mentioned in offer letter of new post. Further it is clarified that before counting the past services of the previous post(s), documents relating the post service must be validated by the present Competent Authority after getting it verified from the previous employer and the same should be placed on personal file of the employee concerned. 4. Whether Retrenched employees under Yes, Benefit of past service will be given to all adjusted DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 10 of 18 NHM, Haryana shall be given the benefit of past service if adjusted on the same post or another post under ΝΗΜ. employees who were retrenched only due to administrative reasons like Non approval of the post, withdrawal of the post, completion of project, non availability of funds, change in project/programme guidelines, rationalization of the activity, availability of the staff from regular side and non continuation of the project by Gol. However, the period of break between date of retrenchment and date of adjustment shall not be counted in total length of service under NHM. Further above provision is not applicable to the employees who have been discharged /terminated due to disciplinary action. 5. You are directed to fix the pay/ remuneration of the employees working under NHM in you district on priority basis by adhering to these guidelines strictly and compliance report for the same may be sent to this office within a week by Fax or e mail.” 16. A bare reading of the above makes it amply clear that benefit of past service rendered the National Health Mission programmes is to be given to employees who have worked thereunder from post to post or from one Programme/Scheme to another. In the present case as firstly evident from letter dated 6.1.2014 (Annexure P-2), and again evident from letter dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P-3), issued by Civil Surgeon cum-Chairman, District Health & Family Welfare Society, Panipat, petitioners have been posted under the NRHM and the NHM DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 11 of 18 programmes, respectively. As such, having served under NHM Programmes, petitioners are entitled to grant of regular pay scale in terms of the Bye-Laws. 17. In this regard, it has been contended by the respondents that petitioners were wrongly and inadvertently posted under the NHM/NRHM, as there were no vacant posts available. However, respondents have placed nothing on record to substantiate their above said contention. There is no material placed on record by the respondents to depict the vacancy position on relevant date. Further, despite repeated Court queries, learned State Counsel is unable to clarify to this Court as to when and how was the said ‘mistake’ discovered; and when and in what manner was a clarification issued; and the said mistake rectified. 18. As noted above, the only reason given by the respondents No.1 to 4 in their reply for denying pay scale to the Petitioners is that it is due to ‘bonafide clerical error’ that the appointment letter dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioners under NRHM. It has further been stated that “in subsequent orders error was rectified and it was done under the Mukhyamantri Muft Illaj Yojna” However, despite repeated Court queries, learned State Counsel is unable to apprise this Court as regards the vacancy position on relevant date. It is further not informed as to when the said error was discovered and when and how it was rectified et cetera. Contentions of the respondents DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 12 of 18 are, therefore, vague and remain unsubstantiated and same have been made only with a view to deprive the petitioners of their rightful claim. 19. It is also relevant to note that the State Health Mission, Haryana, Contractual Employees Service Bye-Law, 2018 (Annexure P-1) is a complete code with regard to constitution and registration of State Health Societies, Haryana under the Registration of Societies Act, 2012, and recruitment and service Conditions of contractual employees in the State Health Mission Schemes to execute the same. PART II of those Service Bye-laws, titled as "RECRUITMENT TO CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYMENT," is completely devoted to procedure for recruitment, terms & conditions of service, remunerations, periodical fixation of pay and allowances, code of conduct and penalties and punishment etc of such employees governed by those Bye-Laws. The respondents are bound to equally implement the service rules for giving same benefits prescribed thereunder to all equally placed employees. 20. As per Bye-Law 12 the contractual employees governed by the same are liable to serve at any place within the State of Haryana, in all the Health Mission Schemes of National Health Mission. Bye-Laws 13 to 13.4 clearly prescribe step-wise fixation of remunerations of such contractual employees i.e. during first 5 years, after completion 5 years and after 10 years of service along with yearly increments and other allowances. Regulation 13.3 governs "Fixation of Basic Pay who have completed 5 years or more continuous satisfactory service but less than 10 years service, which reads as under: - DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 13 of 18 "13.3 Fixation of Basic Pay who have completed 5 years" or more continuous satisfactory service but less than 10 years service.- (i) On completion of minimum five years" continuous satisfactory service, on or after 1st January 2018 remuneration shall be converted into emoluments i.e. basic pay and dearness allowance. The total of basic pay and dearness allowance shall not be less than the amount of remuneration as on 01.01.2018 or on the date of completion of 5 years" satisfactory service, whichever is later. The existing remuneration shall be divided by 2.39 and rounded to next ten. Paise will be ignored and rupee one or more shall be converted to next ten. Thereafter, the resultant figure shall be divided into two parts i.e. Pay in the Pay Band and Grade Pay. Where the resultant figure is less than the entry level pay of the post the Basic Pay shall be fixed equal to entry level pay, where the said figure is more than the entry level pay of the post, the total of Pay Band and Grade Pay shall be equal to the resultant figure. (ii) Plus medical allowance of Rs.500/- per month or coverage under ESI Scheme, as the case may be. (iii) An increment shall be admissible @ 3% of basic pay on- a) 1st July subject to completion of minimum 6 months" or more qualifying service up to 30th June of the current calendar year; or b) 1st January subject to completion of minimum 6 months" or more qualifying service up to 31st December of the preceding calendar year." 21. A perusal of the rule reproduced above shows that no ambiguity has been left for any doubt in fixation of pay and allowances of DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 14 of 18 the employees governed thereunder. The relevant Pay-Bands have been prescribed in Appendix-A to the Service Bye-Laws. The post of Pharmacist falls at entry No.93 in Appendix-A. For the purpose of fixation of pay, there is no difference made in those Bye-laws between the employees working in different schemes time to time. 22. A perusal of letter dated 28.05.2020 (Annexure P-10) written by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 will further show that respondent No.4 has himself written that the benefit of fixation of pay under Bye-Law 13.3 in the prescribed basic pay and allowances in the corresponding Pay- Band after completion of 5 years service is available and is provided by the respondents to all the employees. The relevant Pay-Bands have been prescribed in Appendix-A to the Service Bye-Laws. That is why the respondent No.3 had directed the respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure P-11) to take appropriate action in the case of petitioners at his own level in accordance with the guide-lines provided in Haryana NMH Service Bye-Laws. No further correspondence was required in this case between the respondents. Respondent No.4 was accordingly bound to refix the pay of petitioners in clear terms of Bye-law 13.3. 23. It is also necessary to point out that the petitioner no.2 in her representation dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-13), has clearly written that the other candidates who were lower to her in the merit list, have already been given the benefit of fixation of their pay in the basic pay scale in terms of Bye-Law 13.3 and due to that all of them are getting more pay than the petitioners. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 15 of 18 in any manner, but still they remained sitting silent on the subject matter for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the inaction of respondents only in the case of the petitioners or their acting differently in the case of petitioners suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. 24. Furthermore, vide the impugned orders dated 13.06.2024 (Annexures P-17 and P-17-A), the claim of the petitioner has been rejected totally on wrong facts; and also contrary to the observations made by this Court that, if at all someone is to be posted in a lesser beneficial scheme, the person lowest in the merit list should have been sent to such scheme. 25. Moreover, a perusal of the advertisement (Annexure P-1/A) will show that there was no post advertised for the MMMIY in the same nor any such appointment was made in that scheme from the merit list of 6 candidates whereby all selectees were appointed in the NRHM. Even on transfer of petitioners to MMMIY, their posts in the NRHM remained vacant till 2019 when the same were re-advertised. Why the petitioners were transferred to MMMIY by picking them from top of the list by retaining those below in the merit list, has not been explained by the respondent No.4 in the impugned orders. 26. Even further, impugned action of the respondents is not just, arbitrary and discriminatory, it is also violative of well-established principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the persons who were lower in merit DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 16 of 18 than the petitioners at Sr. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Merit List (Annexure P-1/B), are drawing far higher pay scale than the petitioners. No reason whatsoever has been given to justify the same. 27. In the prospectus of the facts noted here in above, it will be apposite to refer to a judgment dated 17.11.2025 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of matters main being CWP-3472-2025 titled as Dr. Neha Bansal vs. State of Haryana and others, Neutral Citation No. 2025: PHHC: 167829 decided on 17.11.2025; wherein it is held as under: “23. Once the competent Governing Body approved the Bye- laws and the appointments were issued with specific reference to those Bye-laws, the petitioners entered service under a binding regulatory framework created by the State itself. For several years thereafter, the State Health Society, acting under the administrative umbrella of the Government, implemented the Bye-laws in full measure, including fixation of pay and grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits. The Finance Department not only remained aware of this implementation but also repeatedly released funds, granted financial sanctions, and permitted enhanced salary liabilities, including the release of an additional amount of Rs. 60 crores. (Annexure P-3). Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Finance Department, at this belated stage, to allege absence of concurrence or to freeze the benefits granted in pursuance of a duly approved statutory framework and any such attempt is prima facie arbitrary. Thus, the action of the respondents freezing the benefits as directed vide impugned order/letter dated 27.06.2024 (Annezure P-11) is unsustainable in law. XXX XXX XXX DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 17 of 18 26. The petitioners' case is further supported by the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as the consistent, uninterrupted implementation of the Bye-laws for several years created a reasonable, legitimate basis for contractual employees to expect continuity of their pay structure and service conditions. The Supreme Court in Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. (supra) held that legitimate expectation arises when a public authority, through its conduct, representations, or past practice, creates an expectation of consistent treatment, and that abrupt reversal without justifiable reasons amounts to arbitrariness violating Article 14 of Constitution of India. Similarly, in Sivanandan C.T. (supra) the apex Court reiterated that where a public authority has consistently acted in a manner inducing reliance, fairness demands that expectations so created cannot be defeated without following due process and giving compelling reasons. 27. The contention that NHM employees cannot claim parity with State Government employees or counterparts under similar missions is equally untenable. The record shows that the pattern adopted was the same as that of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, and having consciously adopted and implemented that pattern for NHM employees as well, the State cannot now discriminate without rational basis. Administrative consistency is an essential facet of Article 14, and deviation without justification cannot be sustained. Though the employees are contractual but this cannot defeat the petitioners' rights under the administrative law doctrines applicable to all public authorities. XXX XXX XXX 30. The respondents' reliance on Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (supra) to contend that "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right is misplaced, DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17734-2024 (O&M) 18 of 18 as the petitioners are not seeking parity with Government employees; they only seek continuity of the pay structure already granted under validly approved Bye-laws. The very spirit of the service jurisprudence is that once the benefits were granted to the employees that too as per law governing their service condition, the same cannot be withdrawn to their disadvantage. Accordingly, the petitioners are held entitled to be pay fixation as per bye-laws, 2018 having their legitimate rights.” 28. Apropos of the discussion above, the present Writ Petition is allowed; and the impugned orders dated 13.06.2024 (Annexures P-17 & P-17/A) are quashed. It is further directed to the respondents to grant the regular pay scale and other allowances to the petitioners by granting them benefit of entire services from 08.01.2014, w.e.f. the dates they completed 5 years’ service in terms of Bye-Law 13.3 of the State Health Mission, Haryana, Contractual Employees Service Bye-Law, 2018 (P-1). 29. Needful be done within a period of 6 months from the date of this order, failing which petitioners would also be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. 30. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 14.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document