High Court
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:21) (cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:23)(cid:22) (cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:10)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:26)(cid:10)(cid:30)!(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:31)(cid:25)"#$(cid:10)#(cid:25)%(cid:10)(cid:27)# &#(cid:25)#(cid:10) #(cid:26)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:27)#(cid:25)%(cid:24)(cid:29)# (cid:27)(cid:10) (cid:22)’ CWP(cid:5)20952(cid:5)2023 Date of decision: 06.08.2025 Salil Narang and others … Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents (cid:5)’ CWP(cid:5)13408(cid:5)2023 Satish Kumar Bansal and others … Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents (cid:9)’ CWP(cid:5)24931(cid:5)2015 Jarnail Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents (’ CWP(cid:5)26248(cid:5)2023 Surinder Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents Neha 2025.08.12 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:21) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:8)’ CWP(cid:5)15203(cid:5)2023 Deepika Handa … Petitioner Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents (cid:23)’ CWP(cid:5)13453(cid:5)2025 Pankaj Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents (cid:1)(cid:30) #)* (cid:27)(cid:30)(cid:25)+$,(cid:28)(cid:10)) -(cid:10)"(cid:31).(cid:26)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:10)(cid:27)# (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:10).(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:10)$ #
Legal Reasoning
by this Court in (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:9) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:25)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:7)in(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) ! (cid:30) " #$(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(Annexure P(cid:5)2) whereby similarly situated persons were held to be entitled to the benefits flowing from the said decision(Annexure P(cid:5)1). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, (cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:16), submits that the petitioners are employees of the respondent(cid:5)Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A committee of Directors, headed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Industrial Department, Haryana was appointed by the Board of Directors of the respondents on 08.08.2011. On the said day, the Committee recommended pay band/grade pay equal to their counterparts in the professional stream. The recommendation was accepted in toto by the Board of Directors vide order dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P(cid:5)1). However, the decision was not implemented causing some employees to move this Court by means of CWP No. 6090 of 2013. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure P(cid:5)2) and a direction for issued to the respondent to release the benefits to the petitioners therein. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent moved an LPA bearing No. Neha 2025.08.12 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:21) (cid:4)((cid:4) 1252 of 2015, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.08.2015(Annexure P(cid:5)3). Subsequent, an SLP bearing No. 14434(cid:5)14435/2017, challenging judgment dated 27.08.2015(Annexure P(cid:5)3), was moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P(cid:5)4). Further still, a contempt petition was filed, in pursuance of which, judgment dated 29.01.2015 (Annexure P(cid:5)2) was implemented qua the petitioners in CWP(cid:5)6090(cid:5)2013. 4. Learned counsel further argues that once the benefits have been extended to their similarly situated counterparts in terms of (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:6) (cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:2) (cid:7) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12) (cid:7) (cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:15) (cid:7) (cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:17) (cid:7) (cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:7) (cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14) (cid:7) (cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:9) (cid:7) % (cid:7) (cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:13)(cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:14) (cid:25)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) ! (cid:30)" #$, denial of the same to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in (cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:13)&(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:3)’(cid:5) (cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)" "(cid:7)(")(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:27)*(cid:7)$+,- 5. Learned State counsel expresses his inability to controvert the judgments rendered in LPA bearing No. 1252 of 2015 as well as CWP bearing No.6090 of 2013 and submits that the respondents would not be averse to reconsidering the matter in view thereof. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the partied and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. It may be profitable to refer to the legal maxim(cid:5) (cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:14) (cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:23) (cid:5)calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent Court has granted a certain relief to one set of employees, their similarly(cid:5)situated counterparts Neha 2025.08.12 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:21) (cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:4) must not forced to move the Courts by denying them an identical relief. Furthermore, it is the duty of the Courts to maintain consistency in interpretation and application of the law. This approach is buttressed in the principle of stare decisis(cid:5) which is further derived from the legal maxim (cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:2) rendered as(cid:5)to stand by decisions and non disturb settled matters. Therefore, judicial decisions rendered prior in time ought to be followed scrupulously. 8. As such, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter at hand, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The decision thereof shall also be communicated to the petitioners immediately. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected cases. (cid:6)(cid:23)-(cid:6)1-(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:27)(cid:16) 0(cid:27)# (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:10).(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:10)$ # ’ (cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)"(cid:31)%(cid:29)(cid:28) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No Neha 2025.08.12 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:15)*(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:10)Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.13408 of 2023 and CWP No.20953 of 2023. Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.24931 of 2015. Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.26248 of 2023. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.13453 of 2025. Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP No.15203 of 2023, CWP No.13408 of 2023 and CWP No.26248 of 2023. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Parul Panchal, Advocate and Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondent. Neha 2025.08.12 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:21) (cid:27)# (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:10).(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:10)$ # /(cid:10)"-(cid:10)0(cid:30) #,’ (cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:4) 1. This common order shall dispose of all the abovementioned writ petitions as they involve a similar issue. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP(cid:5)13453(cid:5)2025. 2. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking implementation of the decision dated 22(cid:5)12(cid:5)2011 (Annexure P(cid:5)1) taken by the Board of Directors as well as the judgment passed