1 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Subhash Chander .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) CM-10641-2026 1. The present application has been filed under Rule 3-A (1), Chapter VI, Part-B, Volume-V, Volume-B, of the High Court Rules and Orders for grant of leave to file the Civil Writ Petition. 2. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 2 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) MAIN CASE 1. That the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.04.2026, whereby the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of pay at par with his junior, respondent No.4, has been rejected and further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to step up and fix the pay of the petitioner at par with his junior, i.e. respondent No.4, along with all consequential benefits, including arrears and interest thereon, from the date the same became due till the date of actual realization. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were promoted to the post of PGT (Mathematics) vide separate promotion orders dated 17.06.2016 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) with effect from 26.04.2016. Pursuant to the promotion, the petitioner joined the promotional post and was allotted a new place of posting as PGT (Mathematics). It is submitted that respondent No.2 thereafter issued letter/order dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-3), whereby relaxation was granted to those promoted PGTs who had not been relieved from their TGT posts and did not wish to join at the places initially allotted to them. Such employees were permitted to participate in the general PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 3 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) transfer process by exercising their choice of stations through the online portal. Pursuant to the relaxation granted vide Annexure P-3, the petitioner participated in the online transfer drive and thereafter joined the place of posting allotted to him under the said transfer process. 2.1. Learned counsel further submits that the department subsequently issued a rectified seniority list dated 22.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), which adversely affected the petitioner's seniority vis-à-vis respondent No.4. Despite the petitioner being senior, respondent No.4 was granted a higher pay, resulting in an anomalous situation where the petitioner started drawing a lesser pay than his junior. 2.2. It is argued that immediately upon noticing the anomaly, the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated 06.06.2017, 12.06.2017 and 10.10.2023 (Annexures P-5 to P-7), requesting the respondents to step up his pay at par with respondent No.4 in accordance with the settled principles governing pay fixation. However, no effective action was taken by the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing CWP No.267 of 2026, which was disposed of on 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's claim by passing a speaking order. In purported compliance thereof, respondent No.2 passed the impugned speaking order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-9), rejecting the petitioner's PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 4 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) claim. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the respondents' own administrative lapse. It is contended that the respondent-Department is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. On the one hand, vide letter dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-3), the Department granted relaxation to all the promotees and permitted them to participate in the online transfer drive; on the other hand, while rejecting the petitioner's claim, the respondents have completely ignored the very relaxation granted under Annexure P-3. It is further submitted that the impugned order Annexure P-9 has been passed in a mechanical manner, without considering the effect and implications of the relaxation granted vide Annexure P-3, rendering the same arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. He submits that a bare perusal of the letter dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-3) makes it evident that the relaxation contemplated therein was an exception carved out to mitigate the hardships faced by certain categories of promotee PGTs. It is submitted that the said relaxation was intended to benefit widows, persons with disabilities, and employees suffering from serious ailments or other genuine hardships by permitting them to participate in the online transfer drive. According to the learned State counsel, the petitioner PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 5 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) neither claimed to belong to any such category nor pleaded the existence of any hardship warranting the grant of such relaxation. 5. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner's claim is squarely barred by Rule 57 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, which specifically provides that where a senior joins the higher post later than his junior, for whatever reason, and consequently draws lesser pay than the junior, the senior shall not be entitled to claim stepping up of pay at par with the junior. It is argued that the Rule expressly contemplates such a situation and even illustrates that where a junior joins the promotional post on 1st January/1st July and the senior joins on 2nd January/2nd July or thereafter, the junior may legitimately draw higher pay than the senior, and no claim for stepping up of pay would be maintainable. 5.1. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner's claim is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Rule 57 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016 and has rightly been rejected by the competent authority. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner remained indolent for more than ten years and has approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay. The present petition, being highly belated and de hors the applicable statutory rules, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, this PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 6 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) Court finds that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were promoted to the post of PGT (Mathematics) vide separate promotion orders dated 17.06.2016 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), whereby both were granted time to join their respective places of posting. It is an admitted position that respondent No.4 joined the promotional post within the stipulated period. The petitioner, however, did not comply with the condition contained in the promotion order requiring him to join the place of posting within the prescribed time. Instead, he opted to participate in the general transfer drive conducted through the online portal pursuant to the relaxation contained in letter dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-3). Consequently, the petitioner joined the promotional post only on 09.08.2016, i.e. after a delay of 52 days from the last date prescribed in the promotion order. 6.1. As a natural consequence of the delayed joining, the petitioner's pay came to be fixed in accordance with Rule 57 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016. While respondent No.4, having joined within the prescribed period, became entitled to the next annual increment with effect from 01.01.2017, the petitioner's next increment became due only on 01.07.2017, thereby resulting in a difference of six months in their annual increments. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim has, therefore, been passed strictly in consonance with Rule 57(c) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, which reads as under: PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 7 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) “57. Instances where stepping up of pay of senior is not admissible:- [In the instances listed below, stepping up of pay shall not be admissible even if a junior Government employee is drawing more pay than that of senior Government employee:- (a) Where a senior proceeds on extraordinary leave resulting in postponement of date of next increment, consequently he starts drawing less pay than that of his junior in the lower level itself. Therefore, in such case senior shall not claim pay parity on promotion even though he has been promoted earlier to the higher level. (b) If a senior forgoes/refuses promotion leading to his junior being promoted/ appointed to the higher post earlier, junior draws higher pay than the senior. (c) If a senior joins the higher post later than the junior, for whatsoever reasons, whereby he draws less pay than that of junior. In such cases, senior shall not claim stepping up of pay at par with the junior. e.g. on promotion from one post to another junior joins on 1st January/July and senior joins on 2nd January/July or thereafter, the pay of junior shall be more than that of senior. (d) If a senior has joined later than the junior in the feeder post whereby he is in receipt of less pay than that of junior, in such cases also the senior shall not claim pay parity in the higher post though he shall have been promoted earlier to the higher post. (e) Where a person is promoted from lower to a higher post, his pay is fixed with reference to the pay drawn on the lower post under rule 13 and he is likely to get more pay than a direct appointee whose pay is fixed under different set of rules. For example, a Junior Scale Stenographer on promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer gets his pay fixed under rule 13 with reference to the pay drawn on the post of Junior Scale Stenographer, whereas the pay of direct recruit Senior Scale Stenographer PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 8 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) is fixed under rule 9. In such cases, the senior direct recruit cannot claim pay parity with the junior promoted from a lower post to higher post as seniority alone is not a criteria for allowing stepping up. (f) Where a junior gets more pay than his senior due to length of service, appointment by transfer, adjustment in any department after being declared surplus or otherwise. (g) Where a senior draws less pay than that of junior due to different date(s) of option for fixation of pay in the pay band revised or modified from time to time. (h) Where a senior draws less pay than that of junior due to different date(s) of option for fixation of pay on promotion from one post to another or grant of ACP pay scale. (i) If a senior who has been awarded any punishment of reduction of pay or withholding of increment(s) with cumulative effect etc. And is drawing less pay than that of junior. (j) If a senior, who was placed under suspension and the period of suspension has been treated as non-duty, is drawing less pay than that of junior. (k) Where a junior gets more pay than his senior due to additional increment(s) granted to him on acquiring higher qualifications or as a personal measure or otherwise.” 7. A perusal of Annexure P-3 further reveals that the relaxation granted vide letter dated 29.06.2016 was an exceptional measure intended to alleviate the hardship faced by certain categories of promotee PGTs, such as widows, persons with disabilities, employees suffering from serious ailments, and other employees facing genuine hardship, by permitting them to participate in the online transfer drive. The petitioner has neither pleaded PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 9 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) nor established that he belonged to any such category or that he was facing any circumstance warranting the grant of the said relaxation on compassionate or hardship grounds. 7.1. Even otherwise, assuming that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the transfer process, such participation did not have the effect of obliterating the consequences flowing from his delayed joining on the promotional post. The relaxation granted under Annexure P-3 merely enabled eligible employees to participate in the transfer process and did not confer any right to claim notional joining, retrospective pay fixation or stepping up of pay contrary to the statutory mandate contained in Rule 57(c) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016. 8. The delay in joining the promotional post was, therefore, entirely attributable to the petitioner's own choice of participating in the general transfer drive instead of joining the promotional post within the stipulated period. Having consciously elected to do so, the petitioner cannot now seek to avoid the statutory consequences attached to such delayed joining. It is a settled principle of law that a person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by accepting the benefit of an administrative relaxation while simultaneously seeking to avoid the consequences flowing therefrom. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 10 CWP-20232-2026 (O&M) 9. In view of the express bar contained in Rule 57(c) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, the petitioner cannot claim stepping up of his pay merely because his junior is drawing higher pay on account of having joined the promotional post earlier. The impugned speaking order dated 15.04.2026, Annexure P-9, neither suffers from any illegality nor from any perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 08.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.07.15 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.