Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 October, 2025
CWP-25820-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Serial No. 114
CWP-25820-2025
Decided on:- 13.10.2025
Devendra Kumari Yadav . . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.07.2025, Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner's case for protection of pay has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner initially joined as Junior Basic Training (J.B.T.) in the Department on 12.10.2000. She was thereafter selected as Post Graduate Teacher (P.G.T.), the post she had applied for through proper channel. After being relieved by the Department on 05.02.2019, she joined as PGT on 06.02.2019. At that time, her last pay drawn was `58,600. However, her pay was fixed at a lower stage, `47,600, which was in violation of Section 10 (ii) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016. He has further referred to an order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench in LPA-2772-2025 titled 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 08:20:11 ::: CWP-25820-2025 -2- Virender Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, filed by a similarly placed employee seeking pay protection. The matter was disposed of in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents; it reads as under:
7. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned State counsel fairly states that the pay fixed for the appellant on his appointment as PG.T., was below the pay which he was drawing as a T.G.T. Once that be so, we are of the view that the claim of the appellant for pay protection needs to be revisited.
8. In order to facilitate such fresh consideration, we allow the instant appeal and set aside the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to the present appellant. The order passed by the authority dated 17.12.2024 is also quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned authority to revisit the issue by passing a fresh order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
3. Learned State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner's case for pay protection will also be reconsidered alongwith that of Varinder Kumar (supra).
4. In view of the above, petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 is set aside directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for pay protection within a period of three months.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 13.10.2025 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 08:20:12 :::