Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Otehrs vs Jagdeep Singh And Another on 16 January, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113
CWP-729-2026
Date of Decision: 16.01.2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
...Petitioners
Versus
JAGDEEP SINGH AND ANR
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Standing Counsel,
for the petitioners.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by which, it has been held that the appointees to the post of Havildar will be entitled for the grade-pay of Rs.8560/- irrespective of the fact that whether the appointment to said post has been made by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the rules governing the service, the benefit of the grade-pay of Rs.8560/- can only be made to those who have been appointed to the post of Havildar, which post can be filled-up by both the methods, i.e. by way of direct recruitment as well as by way of promotion and it is only in those cases 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:07:51 ::: CWP-729-2026 (2) where the appointment to said post has been made by way of promotion, the benefit of the grade-pay of Rs.8560/- cannot be given which aspect has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record of the case with his able assistance.
4. It may be noticed that once the grade-pay of Rs.8560/- has been made applicable to hose who have been appointed to post of Havildar by way of direct recruitment and respondent No.1 was appointed to said post by way of promotion, thus, merely because no direct recruitment is made on the said post qua respondent No.1, the benefit of this said grade-pay could not have been denied.
5. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kamlakar and others vs Union of India and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2300, it has been held that the benefit to which a beneficiary is entitled to the same cannot be granted differently to appointees working on same post but have been appointed though different method of recruitment but the same is to be given to a cadre irrespective whether the appointment is made by way of direct recruitment or by promotion. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is as under:-
"12. We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the Civil Appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:07:52 ::: CWP-729-2026 (3) recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given. The birth marks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their right to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale - which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2.7.1990, - then any distinction between Data Processing Assistants who were direct recruits and those who were promotees, is not permissible. We, therefore, reject the respondent's contention. We have examined the record and the common points arising in this case and those in Civil Appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition 16646 of 1995 and we are unable to find any lawful distinction between the appellants and those in the other appeal which has been allowed."
6. Once, the benefit of grade-pay of Rs.8560/- was denied to respondent No.1 only on the ground that he was not appointed to said post by way of direct recruitment, whereas, as per settled principle of law stipulated hereinabove, even a promotee appointed to same post is entitled for grant of grade-pay of Rs.8560/-, who was promoted after 1.1.2006, even though the Tribunal has not given sufficient reasons to grant the benefit to respondent No.1, once the respondent No.1 is entitled for the benefit granted, order passed by the Tribunal is not to be interfered with.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:07:52 :::
CWP-729-2026 (4)
7. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances in the present case, as the benefit granted to respondent No.1 is not contrary to the settled principle of law, no ground is made for any interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
JUDGE
( VIKAS SURI )
January 16, 2026 JUDGE
harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:07:52 :::