1 CWP-27349-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-27349-2026 Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 Dr. Sujata and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. S.S. Patter with Mr. Abhayjeet Singh, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 29.07.2025 and 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) vide which the salary/remuneration of the intervening period was denied on the principle of No work No Pay. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to release salary/remuneration of petitioners for the intervening period from the respective dates of relieving till the respective dates of re- joining an to treat said intervening period as continuous service for all intents and purposes. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.26 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-27349-2026 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are working as Extension Lecturers in the Higher Education Department, State of Haryana, and were relieved from service despite subsisting protective orders passed by this Court. The petitioners were always ready and willing to discharge their duties, but were forcibly prevented from doing so solely on account of the respondents’ own action. Learned counsel further contends that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents permitted the petitioners to rejoin their duties vide orders dated 28.05.2025 and 29.07.2025; however, while permitting such rejoining, the respondents illegally imposed the condition of “No Work No Pay” for the intervening period. Such condition is wholly unsustainable as the petitioners had neither remained absent nor abandoned their service and it was the respondents who prevented them from discharging their duties. 2.1 It is further submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong by first preventing the petitioners from working and thereafter denying them salary for the period of such wrongful exclusion. The impugned action is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, CWP No.2946 of 2019, decided on 20.02.2026, wherein it has been held that the principle of “No Work No Pay” cannot be invoked where an employee is willing to work but is prevented by the employer from discharging his duties. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.26 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-27349-2026 2.2 Learned counsel further relies upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India, (2015) 14 SCC 335, to contend that the normal rule of “No Work No Pay” is not applicable where an employee, without any fault on his part, is kept away from work by the authorities. Readiness and willingness to work coupled with wrongful exclusion entitles the employee to consequential monetary benefits. 2.3 Learned counsel also relies upon Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Civil Appeal No.11325 of 2011, to contend that where an employee is wrongfully kept out of service and such action is subsequently reversed, the employee is entitled to wages for the entire period of wrongful exclusion. It is further contended that similarly situated Extension Lecturers, particularly Dr. Sonu Rani, have already been granted arrears of remuneration for the intervening period vide Memo No.22170-2024-C1-52 dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P-4). Denial of the same benefit to the present petitioners, who are similarly situated, is discriminatory. 2.4 Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners are also entitled to protection of their security of tenure under the Haryana Extension Lecturers Security of Service Amendment Act, 2026, enacted by the State Government to secure the tenure of Extension Lecturers and protect their legitimate service rights. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioners from service and thereafter permitting them to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.26 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-27349-2026 rejoin, while denying them salary for the intervening period, is contrary to the statutory protection so accorded to them. 2.5 Lastly, learned counsel submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this very Court in CWP No.9965 of 2026 and connected matters, Dr. Jile Singh and others Versus State of Haryana, decided on 03.08.2026, concerning similarly situated Extension Lecturers. On the principle of judicial consistency and parity, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. 2.6 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the present writ petition itself is treated as a comprehensive representation of the petitioners and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same, in the light of the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner particularly Dr. Jile Singh (supra) and in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection if the present writ petition is treated as a comprehensive representation of the petitioner and respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same, including the challenge to the impugned orders, in accordance with law and in the light of the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, within a stipulated period. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.26 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-27349-2026 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.2/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation of the petitioners and to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in the light of judgment passed in Dr. Jile Singh (supra), by passing a reasoned and speaking order 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 shall be granted by the respondent/competent authority in accordance with law. 6. Further, order/letter dated (Annexure P-1) impugned in the present writ petition, is quashed and set aside and respondents/competent authority is directed to pass the order in light of judgment rendered in Dr. Jile Singh (supra). 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 26.08.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.08.26 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document