1 CWP-23077-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-23077-2026 Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 Smt. Jangjeet Rani .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Surender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release and pay the lawful salary and all consequential dues of petitioner w.e.f. 16.01.2024 to 31.03.2024, the date from which she was relived from service along with interest thereon and further directing fixation of responsibility and initiation of departmental/administrative action against the erring official whose act of omission, negligence and failure to resolve the salary disbursement issue have resulted in prolonged deprivation of petitioner’s salary. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-23077-2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the respondents have at no stage disputed the fact that the petitioner had actually discharged her duties during the relevant period for which salary has been withheld. It is submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner's engagement or the services rendered by her and, therefore, the denial of salary for the period during which she admittedly worked is arbitrary, unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, after attaining the age of superannuation, was re-employed as a Lecturer (Sociology) under the Sugam Shiksha Scheme and was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Ghimana, District Jind, where she continuously discharged her duties till the conclusion of the academic session, i.e. 31.03.2024. It is contended that once the respondents have accepted the services rendered by the petitioner, they cannot withhold the salary payable for the period during which she actually worked, as such action is contrary to the settled principle that an employee who has rendered services is entitled to receive remuneration for the work performed. 2.1 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the legal notice dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-8), by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and within a time-bound period. 3. On advance notice, learned State counsel submits that he has no objection if a direction is issued to respondent No.3/competent authority to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-23077-2026 consider and decide the legal notice dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period. However, he opposes the claim of the petitioner on merits and submits that the petitioner's claim is wholly misconceived and devoid of any legal basis. It is contended that upon seeking re-employment, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to furnish all the requisite documents, including the prescribed undertaking and Annexure-A, in strict compliance with the instructions contained in Memo No.15/07-2023 Co.(2) dated 10.09.2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily sought re-employment with the object of imparting education to needy and underprivileged students belonging to the economically weaker sections of society, out of her own free will and personal inclination towards the cause of education. At the time of accepting such re-employment, the petitioner was fully aware of the applicable terms and conditions and was not induced by any monetary consideration. Having accepted the terms governing her re- employment without any demur, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom and claim benefits contrary to the governing instructions. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the legal notice dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-23077-2026 accordance with law within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be duly communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 5. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted forthwith by respondent/competent authority. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.29 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document