Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmahender And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 January, 2026
LPA-3427-2025 (O&M) -1-
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-3427-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.01.2026
Jagmahender and others ...Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Tehpal Dhull, Advocate
Mr. Daman Chaudhary, Advocate
Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)
1. The appellants are working as Data Entry Operators in the Society of Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Priyojana Parishad. In the year 2013, service conditions of the employees of Society were known as Haryana School Shiksha Priyojana Parishad Employees Service Bye-laws, 2013 (for short, 'the Bye-laws, 2013'). Prior to coming into force of 2013 Regulations, the appellants apparently were drawing higher salary with junior clerks and those equivalent to Accounts Assistant. The post of Junior Clerk and Accounts Assistant was re-designated as Assistant and Accounts Assistant. Under the Bye-laws, 2013, a higher salary has been prescribed for Accounts Assistants and Assistants. The appellants raised a grievance before the Competent 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2026 22:23:34 ::: LPA-3427-2025 (O&M) -2- Authority stating that they are entitled to parity in the matter of pay-scale at par with the Assistants and Accounts Assistants as their qualification is higher and that earlier in point of time the appellants were receiving higher salary. Such claim has been rejected by the competent authority. In a challenge to such decision before the learned Single Judge, the writ Court has refused to accept the appellant's grievance by observing as under:-
"4. It is apparent from the facts aforementioned that the petitioners/DEOs have been placed in PB-I after framing of the Bye- laws, 2013 by the Parishad, and the Accounts Assistant in a higher pay scale, i.e., PB-II. It is a matter of record that after the amendment in 2010 qualifications for these two posts are different as has been mentioned in the impugned order itself. The order reads as under:
In 30th meeting of Executive Committee held on 7.10.2010 the qualification for the post of Accounts clerk (re- designated as Accounts Assistant) and Assistant have been amended which is as under:
Accounts Assistant Assistant Data Entry
Operator-cum-
Clerk
1. Graduate with 55% 1. Graduate with at 1.Graduate with
marks in commerce with 2 least 55% marks 55% marks or
years experience in Post Graduate
accounts in an organisation
of repute.
2. Good Knowledge of 2. 5 years experience 2.One year
Accounts Software (Telly as Clerk in an Diploma in
9.0 ERP) organisation of Computer
repute Application from
an Institute of
3.Matric with Hindi/ 3.Matric with repute
Sanskrit or 10+2/BA/MA Hindi/Sanskrit or
with Hindi as one of the 10+2/BA/MA with 3. Three years subject. Hindi as one of the experience in any subject. reputed institute.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2026 22:23:35 ::: LPA-3427-2025 (O&M) -3- The qualifications for the post of Accounts Assistant and Assistant have been enhanced but the qualifications for the post of Data Entry Operator cum clerk remained the same. With a view to bring all the employees of Parishad at par with the Govt. Employees and to give them certain benefits, HSSPP Byelaws came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.2013. According to byelaws the employees of the Parishad were granted entry level pay and Grade pay as applicable to their posts on pattern of the State Government after completion of five year satisfactory service. The salary of the DEO-cum- Clerk was fixed at par with the post of clerk in the Govt. Department.
As per notification of Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana dated 7.11.2013 the nomenclature of the post of Clerk-cum-DEO, Office Associate, Data Entry Operator and Clerk-cum-Typist etc. was changed to a single and uniform nomenclature of 'Çlerk' in all the Govt. Departments. Haryana Govt. Departments have fixed the Grade pay @ Rs. 1900/- for the post of clerk.
Further, the services of Group-C & D employees engaged on contract basis in Government Departments have been regularized in compliance of the Haryana Govt. notification no. 6/7/2014-J GSI dated 18.6.2014. The employees who were working on the post of Data Entry Operator were regularized in the pay band of Rs. 5200- 20200+1900 G.P. plus usual allowances as sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time.
The Parishad has already granted the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 plus 2000 Grade pay for the post of Data Entry Operator as per Service Byelaws 2013. Thus, the petitioners are already drawing grade pay more than the employees of the State Government. Also the petitioners cannot claim the pay scale and Grade pay of the posts which are different 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2026 22:23:35 ::: LPA-3427-2025 (O&M) -4- from the post of petitioners and having different qualifications and experience.
In view of the above, the claim made by the petitioners in their representation dated 15.12.2020 cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.
5. As apparent from the facts enumerated, the Parishad had decided to bring its employees at par with the Government employees and to give them certain benefits. Nomenclature of DEOs working in the State Government was changed to that of Clerk, and were placed in the pay scale of `5200-20200+GP 1900 plus usual allowances. Despite being equated, the petitioners have been placed in the higher scale, `5200-20200+GP 2000, as mentioned herein before. Their claim for equivalence with the posts of Accounts Assistant is based on the plea that prior to enforcement of the Bye-laws 2013, they had been getting higher pay. This cannot be a ground to sustain the claim as, undisputedly, after enforcement of the Bye-laws service conditions and pay scales of the employees are governed thereunder, and different qualifications and specialised experience has been prescribed for these two posts-DEO and Accounts Assistant. The duties assigned to these posts are also different as apparent from the nature of posts itself. Keeping in view these valid considerations, a conscious decision has been taken by the Parishad to place these posts in distinct pay scales; accordingly, no exception can be taken to it. Besides, the petitioners have been drawing salary in the prescribed pay scales right from enforcement of the Bye-laws on 01.04.2013. Resultantly, this Court finds no plausible reason to entertain the petition."
2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has caused severe prejudice to the appellants, inasmuch as they were earlier drawing higher salary and are better 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2026 22:23:35 ::: LPA-3427-2025 (O&M) -5- qualified than those who have been allowed higher salary than the appellants. It is also submitted that one of the grounds taken to non-suit the appellants is the alleged parity of Data Entry Operator with the State Government employees.
Notwithstanding the fact that the qualification of Data Entry Operator for the State is only Intermediate, whereas the qualification here is Graduation with 55% marks.
3. The submission of the appellants is opposed by the learned State counsel, who submits that the principle of pay parity would be applicable only between equals and those who are working on different posts in different departments with distinct qualifications and responsibilities cannot be treated alike.
4. It is undisputed that the appellants are claiming parity with those who are working in the Accounts Department as well as in the ministerial cadre. The appellants are Data Entry Operators. We are of the view that the work and responsibility of a Data Entry Operator would be distinct from that of Accounts Assistant who is in the Accounts cadre and the Assistant in the general ministerial cadre. The qualification and experience for the posts are distinctly prescribed.
5. In such circumstances, no claim of parity can be made out by the appellants. So far as parity with the employees of State is considered, we find that the appellants herein are employees of the Society and merely because for the post of Data Entry Operator, the minimum qualification by the State is Intermediate, would not enable them to higher salary. Even otherwise, these are matters of policy and unless apparent illegality or arbitrariness is shown, the Courts would be reluctant to interfere in the matter.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2026 22:23:35 :::
LPA-3427-2025 (O&M) -6-
6. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 21.01.2026 neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2026 22:23:35 :::