← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/8535/2017dismissed

Sunil Kumar And Others v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2025-11-04Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.208 Date of Decision:04.11.2025 CWP-8535-2017 SUNIL KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....Respondents CWP-8570-2017 PARBAL KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....Respondents CWP-11414-2017 SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Ms. Pranhita Singh, Advocate Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advocate Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (Oral) 1.

Rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. 2.

As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order.

3.

The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of MAHIMA 2025.11.04 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent(s) to grant them pay scale at par with drivers of other departments of State Government. 4.

The petitioners are holding rank of Constable-Driver. They have been appointed as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana). They are claiming that they should be paid salary at par with drivers of other departments.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioners are getting many allowances being members of police force, however, they are not paid salary at par with drivers of other Departments. The discrimination is writ large.

6.

Learned State counsel submits that issues involved is no more res integra and stands covered by order dated 16.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-19902-2013 titled as "Rohtash Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors."

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) expressed his inability to controvert applicability of the aforesaid order to the instant case. 8.

The petition(s) stands dismissed in the light of Rohtash Kumar (supra).

9.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) 04.11.2025 JUDGE mahima Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No MAHIMA 2025.11.04 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh