Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate and Mr. Parth Aneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the anomaly in the pay scales from the date anomaly has started i.e. 01.01.2006 instead of removing the anomaly w.e.f.
01.01.2026 and the petitioners be granted all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that once the competent authority has acknowledged the existence of pay anomaly, the same ought to have been corrected from its inception granting benefit prospectively from 01.01.2016 is arbitrary and discriminatory. He further submits that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.19376 of 2021 titled as Ramesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 12.07.2024 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner has filed a detailed representation (Annexure P- 4) but the same remained unheeded. CWP-21332-2026 -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.
Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time- bound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.
Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, after affording them an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.
Disposed of, accordingly.
16.07.2026 Neha (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 16 Jul 2026. The bench was HARPREET SINGH BRAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.