Raj Kumar And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 05.05.2026 Raj Kumar And Another .....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR      Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG Haryana.

 

  !"#$% for respondents No.2 and 3.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

This Civil Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus, calling for the record of the case and, after perusal of the same, granting the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of work-charged services rendered by the



petitioners for all intents and purposes, including seniority, promotion, ACP scales, etc.;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) scales to the petitioners on completion of 8, 16 and 24 years of service, in terms of the provisions of the Assured Career Progression Rules, 1998 and Assured Career Progression Rules, 2008, as well as Government instructions dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P/6), by counting the work-charged service period in view of the judgment dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P/7) and judgment/order dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure P/13), along with all consequential benefits of ad hoc/work-charged service including seniority, promotion, and arrears of pay with applicable interest;

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at par with their junior counterparts working on the post of Water Pump Operators in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, in terms of the Government instructions dated 02.06.2008 (Annexure P/14), and to release the arrears of pay with applicable interest.

2.

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, at the outset, submits that the

&

petitioners have been granted the benefit of past service rendered as a workcharge employee in the respondent-Corporation with effect from 01.10.1986, while calculating his qualifying service for commutation. As such, the present petition deserves to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

3.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to revive the present petition in case the factual position, as conveyed by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 before this Court, is found to be incorrect.

4.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



    
   '() # *)  + ,  *)