CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -1-

108(79 cases)

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

 CWP-3472-2025

 DECIDED ON:17.11.2025

DR. NEHA BANSAL                

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                             

 .....RESPONDENT(S)

2. CWP-10047-2025

MADHU VERMA AND OTHERS            

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

3. CWP-10262-2025

ANKIT DUHAN AND OTHERS          

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

4. CWP-10318-2025

VED PARKASH AND OTHERS          

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -2-

5. CWP-11403-2025

PRIYANKA SHARMA AND OTHERS          

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

6. CWP-11404-2025

JYOTI AND ANOTHER      

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

7. CWP-11435-2025

KOMAL AND OTHERS      

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

8. CWP-11944-2025

AMIT GARG AND OTHERS      

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

9. CWP-12499-2025

POOJA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -3-

10. CWP-12552-2025

TULSI AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

11. CWP-13259-2025

YOGENDER SINGH    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

12. CWP-13292-2025

VIKAS AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

13. CWP-13426-2025

AMITA BUDHIRAJA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

14. CWP-13916-2025

NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -4-

15. CWP-14393-2025

NEELAM AND ORS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

16. CWP-14904-2025

SAPNA AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

17. CWP-14908-2025

AARTI VASHISTHA AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

18. CWP-15500-2025

SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS  

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

19. CWP-15623-2025

SUNITA KUMARI AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -5-

20. CWP-15925-2025

MUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

21. CWP-16069-2025

BHAVNESH KUMAR AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

22. CWP-16149-2025

MOHIT AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

23. CWP-16173-2025

JYOTI    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

24. CWP-16174-2025

AMZAD KHAN AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -6-

25. CWP-16214-2025

SUNIDHI VERMA AND ORS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA  AND ORS                    

                   .....RESPONDENT(S)

26. CWP-16313-2025

MANJU KUMARI AND ANOTHER     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

27. CWP-16335-2025

ASHU KUMAR AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

28. CWP-16437-2025

HARKESH AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

29. CWP-16460-2025

MUSTAKIM AHMED    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -7-

30. CWP-16467-2025

GURPREET SINGH     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF 

SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,                             

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

31. CWP-16562-2025

PRIYANKA     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

32. CWP-16651-2025

VIJAYNDER AND ANOTHER     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

33. CWP-16816-2025

PALLAVI SHARMA AND OTHERS

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

34. CWP-16851-2025

MAMTA     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -8-

35. CWP-17082-2025

PAVAN KUMAR AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

36. CWP-17588-2025

PRIYA HOODA AND OTHER   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

37. CWP-17635-2025

VIJENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

38. CWP-18104-2025

GEETA RANI AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

39. CWP-18435-2025

RITA RANI AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -9-

40. CWP-18540-2025

POONAM AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

41. CWP-18963-2025

SANTOSH RANI AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

42. CWP-19145-2025

SUMAN GUPTA    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

43. CWP-20230-2025

NISHA AND OTHERS

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

44. CWP-21810-2025

SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -10-

45. CWP-21942-2025

ATUL KUMAR GIJWANI AND OTHERS  

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

46. CWP-21963-2025

NARENDER BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

47. CWP-23747-2025

SANTOSH YADAV AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

48. CWP-23901-2025

VARSHA AND ORS

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

49. CWP-24612-2025

GOVIND PANWAR AND OTHERS  

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -11-

50. CWP-25293-2025

BALWANT INDORA AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

51. CWP-25355-2025

DEEPIKA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

52. CWP-25908-2025

PAVITRA YADAV AND OTHERS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

53. CWP-26353-2025

NEHA ARORA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

54. CWP-27649-2025

RENU BALA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -12-

55. CWP-28138-2025

RAJAT KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

56. CWP-28197-2025

NAVDEEP DANGI AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

57. CWP-28422-2025

RITU AND OTHERS

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

58. CWP-30108-2025

KAMAL KANT

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

59. CWP-30164-2025

VIKAS VERMA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -13-

60. CWP-31410-2025

JAI PRAKASH   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

61. CWP-31605-2025

MANPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

62. CWP-32091-2025

MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

63. CWP-32292-2025

MOHIT KUMAR  

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

64. CWP-3477-2025

ARTI AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -14-

65.

CWP-4920-2025

VIVEK JINDAL AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

66. CWP-5548-2025

DR PAYAL KHANDELWAL AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

67. CWP-6086-2025

SUPRIYA AND ANOTHER    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

68. CWP-6261-2025

MEENA AND ANOTHER     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

69. CWP-7064-2025

HEMANT YADAV AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -15-

70. CWP-7240-2025

SANEH    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

71. CWP-8103-2025

SAPNA AND OTHERS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

72. CWP-8234-2025

MANJU RANI AND OTHERS  

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

73. CWP-8281-2025

AMIT MALIK AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

74. CWP-8831-2025

SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS    

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -16-

75. CWP-8849-2025

SURENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

76. CWP-8897-2025

RENU AND OTHERS   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

77. CWP-8996-2025

POOJA AND OTHERS     

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

78. CWP-9074-2025

JYOTI DEVI   

.....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS 

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              

          .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with 

Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, 

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Anurag Goyal, Sr. Advocate with 

Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -17-

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Sr. Advocate with 

Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Mr. Tamanna Banwala, Advocate and 

Mr. Pragun Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate with 

Ms. Sneha Jakhar, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate and 

Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. L.K. Narang, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Parminder Singh Ghotra, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Chanakaya Batta, Advocate with 

Mr. Prince Saini, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Pradeep Bhukal, Advocate for 

Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advocate for 

the petitioner(s)

Mr. Kushagra Goyal, Advocate, 

Mr. Brijesh Kumar, 

Mr. Vishesh Bhatia, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Akash Mehra, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate with 

Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, Advocate 

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -18-

Ms. Sneha Jakhar, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Kunal Phogat, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and 

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for 

Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate 

for the petitioner(s)

Ms. Kriteka Sheokand, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Mahesh Inder Preet, Advocate for 

Mr. Naresh  Kaushik, Advocate

for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Naveen Sheokand, Advocate for 

the petitioner(s) (through Hybrid Mode)

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG. Haryana

*****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. This Court shall dispose off all the above-said petitions, as common

question of law involved therein. 

2. Just to avoid repetition, the facts are being taken from CWP-3472-

2025.

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -19-

Prayer

3. The   jurisdiction   of   this   Court   has   been   invoked  under  Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ,

order   or   direction   quashing   order/letter   dated   27.06.2024   (P-11)   issued

by respondent no. 2 whereby in a completely illegal, arbitrary manner and without

their being any basis for the said impugned action and further without any

authority or jurisdiction, the respondent no. 2 has issued directions to freeze the

benefits   as   admissible   to   petitioners   under   the   State   Health   Mission

Service Bye-laws 2018, as issued and notified by respondent Health Mission

under which the petitioners have been held entitled to the benefit of pay fixation

and   further   directions   has   been   issued   to   withdraw  benefits   granted

after   dates   27.06.2024   thus,   reducing/re-fixing   the  monthly   salaries   of   all

petitioners,   without   any   opportunity   of   hearing   and  without   any

show cause notice with a further prayer to set aside the letter dated 27.11.2024

(Annexure P-13), 09.01.2025 and 17.01.2025 (Annexures P-14 and P-15) issued

by respondent/Health Mission, whereby in furtherance of above-said order/letter

dated 27.06.2025, the benefits under Service Bye-laws 2018have been directed to

be stayed till further decision and further benefits granted after 27.06.2024 have

been ordered to be withdrawn and further recovery has been ordered. 

Brief Facts

4. The   petitioners   are   contractual   employees   engaged  under   the

State/National Health Mission, Haryana, who received their service conditions and

pay structure under the Service Bye-laws, 2018, approved by the Governing Body

of the Mission. For several years, the petitioners received salaries, allowances, and

benefits, including pay fixation under the 6th Pay Commission pattern, without

any objection from the Finance Department.

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -20-

5. Subsequently,   the   Finance   Department   issued   a   series   of

communications directing the freezing of benefits, withdrawal of pay fixation, and

recovery of amounts already disbursed, contending that necessary approvals and

concurrence had not been obtained.

6. The petitioners challenged these actions, contending that the Bye-

laws were validly approved, that the benefits had been lawfully paid for years, and

that the impugned orders were arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and

infringed their vested rights.

7. The matter came before the Court seeking quashing of the impugned

orders and restoration of all benefits already granted. 

Contentions

On behalf of Petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the State Health

Society, Haryana, is a State-controlled autonomous body registered under the

Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. Its Governing Body

and Executive Committee are chaired by senior State officials, including the Chief

Secretary   and   the   Financial   Commissioner   &   Principal   Secretary,   Haryana.

Accordingly, all actions and decisions taken by the Society, including those

relating  to  the   petitioners,   are   effectively  State  actions  and   fall   within   the

administrative control of the State Government.

9. It is contended that the petitioners had been engaged under the

National Health Mission (NHM) on purely contractual terms, initially appointed as

District Program Managers, Block Program Managers, and similar posts under the

operational framework of the NHM. 

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -21-

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although their

appointments were contractual in nature, they were governed by the Service Bye-

laws, 2018, issued by the State Health Society vide powers delegated by its

Governing Body. Once approved by the Governing Body of the State Health

Mission, headed by the Chief Secretary, these Bye-laws constituted a binding

framework under which the petitioners had entered service. The appointment

letters issued to the petitioners expressly referred to these Bye-laws, thereby

incorporating them into the terms of their contractual employment. The petitioners

had been drawing salaries in accordance with the Bye-laws for several years, and

their service terms and financial entitlements were therefore fully regulated by this

approved framework.

11. Learned   counsel   emphasized   that   the   Finance   Department

(Respondent No. 2) was fully aware of and actively participated in the approval

process of these Bye-laws, including granting financial concurrence at multiple

stages and releasing additional funds for the purpose.

12. It is further contended that the petitioners were lawfully granted the

benefits of the 6th Pay Commission in accordance with the Service Bye-laws

2018, and all financial implications, including the additional grant of Rs. 60 crores

for salaries, had been sanctioned and released with full knowledge and approval of

the Finance Department.

13. In light of this, it was submitted that the Finance Department cannot,

at this belated stage, allege lack of concurrence or seek to revoke the benefits

already granted to the petitioners.

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -22-

14. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned actions withholding or

seeking recovery of these benefits be quashed, and the petitioners be allowed to

continue to enjoy the benefits conferred under the Service Bye-laws 2018.

15. In support of their arguments the petitioners have relied upon the

judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as   “The State Of

Jharkhand and others vs Brahmputra Metallics Limited and Another 2020 SCC

Online SC 968” and “Sivanandan C.T. vs High Court Of Kerala 2023(5) KHC

347” to argue principle of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness.

On behalf of Respondents

16. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   submitted   that   the   present

petition is not maintainable against Respondent No. 2, the Additional Chief

Secretary to Government of Haryana, Finance Department, as the petitioners have

not demonstrated any violation of their legal or fundamental rights, and therefore,

no   cause   of   action  or   locus   standi   exists   to   invoke  the   extraordinary   writ

jurisdiction of this Court. It was further contended that the National Health

Mission (NHM) is a centrally sponsored scheme, implemented jointly by the

Government of India and the State Government with a fixed fund-sharing ratio,

and that the petitioners’ services are project-specific, contractual, and co-terminus

with the scheme. The petitioners cannot claim any right to regularization or pay

parity with State Government employees, as their appointments were explicitly on

a   fixed-term,   consolidated   salary   basis,   with   no   assurances   or   promises   of

permanent employment, and the terms of engagement clearly disallow claims to

government-scale pay.

17. I t was submitted that the Service Bye-laws, 2018, while implemented

by the NHM, were done so without obtaining all necessary approvals from the

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -23-

competent authorities, including the Chief Secretary’s office, Legal Remembrance

Department, and Council of Ministers, as advised by the Finance Department. The

Finance   Department   had   only   given   conditional   concurrence   for   granting

remuneration/pay-scales under the 6th Pay Commission on the pattern of Sarva

Shiksha   Abhiyaan,   and   any   deviation   from   these   conditions   rendered   the

implementation irregular. Consequently, the subsequent freezing of benefits under

the Service Bye-laws by the Finance Department vide U.O. No. 1/49/2022-

1FDII/18137 dated 27.06.2024 is justified to ensure compliance with proper

financial procedures.

18. It was further submitted that the NHM is a body corporate, registered

under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, and while

the State Government has representation in its Governing Body, the Society

functions as an autonomous entity with perpetual succession. Even if any benefits

were granted under the Service Bye-laws, such benefits do not confer vested rights

or entitlement to future payments at par with State Government employees, as the

Bye-laws themselves have no statutory backing and were implemented irregularly.

19. Counsel for the respondents also highlighted the critical role of the

Finance Department as the custodian of the State’s finances, mandated to ensure

that proposals involving recurring expenditure or new financial liabilities are

examined with reference to the State’s fiscal capacity. The conditional concurrence

previously given was rightly withdrawn upon discovery of non-compliance with

stipulated conditions, thereby preventing the State exchequer from being burdened

with unsustainable financial liabilities. Freezing the benefits under the Service

Bye-laws is a necessary and reasonable step in fiscal management and does not

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -24-

violate any legal or statutory provisions thus petition is therefore liable to be

dismissed.  

20. In support of the arguments the State Counsel has relied upon the

judgment  of the Apex Court rendered in the case of ‘  State of Haryana and anr.   

vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff  Association’ 2002(3) ALL MR 932,

to argue that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right to be asked for

and it depends upon the administrative decisions.

Analysis

 21. This Court is now called upon to determine whether the State/Finance

Department having allowed the Service Bye-laws, 2018 to operate for years,

sanctioned funds, approved financial liabilities, and permitted NHM contractual

employees   to   draw  6th   Pay   Commission   benefits   can   at   this   stage   freeze,

withdraw, or recover such benefits on the plea of lack of concurrence, despite the

Bye-laws having been approved by the Chief-Secretary headed Governing Body,

and whether such reversal violates the doctrines of estoppel and  legitimate

expectation. 

22. On careful consideration of the rival submissions and the material

placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners were appointed

strictly in accordance with the Service Bye-laws, 2018,(Annexure P-5)   which

were duly approved by the Governing Body of the State Health Mission, chaired

by none other than the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana.

23. Once the competent Governing Body approved the Bye-laws and the

appointments   were   issued   with   specific   reference   to  those   Bye-laws,   the

petitioners entered service under a binding regulatory framework created by the

State itself. For several years thereafter, the State Health Society, acting under the

administrative umbrella of the Government, implemented the Bye-laws in full

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -25-

measure, including fixation of pay and grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits. The

Finance Department not only remained aware of this implementation but also

repeatedly released funds, granted financial sanctions, and permitted enhanced

salary liabilities, including the release of an additional amount of Rs. 60 crores.

(Annexure P-3).Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Finance Department,

at this belated stage, to allege absence of concurrence or to freeze the benefits

granted in pursuance of a duly approved statutory framework and any such attempt

is prima facie arbitrary. Thus, the action of the respondents freezing the benefits as

directed   vide   impugned   order/letter   dated   27.06.2024   (Annezure   P-11)   is

unsustainable in law.

24. In such circumstances, the respondents are clearly barred by the

doctrine of estoppel, as the petitioners altered their position and structured their

employment rights based on the Bye-laws approved and acted upon by the State

machinery   itself.   Once   the   State   has   consciously   adopted   a   set   of   rules,

implemented them for years, and derived administrative benefit from them, it

cannot subsequently claim that the same were never validly approved merely

because financial repercussions are now being realized.

25. Further, the argument that concurrence of the Finance Department-

respondent No.2 being represented by Additional Chief Secretary was not obtained

is also unsustainable. As the Chief Secretary heads the Governing body of the

State Health Society and approval granted in that capacity is deemed approval  by

the highest executive authority of the State Health Mission.  The State cannot now

argue that such decision was not in its knowledge. Once the Chief Secretary as

Chairperson of the Governing Body of respondent No.4 sanctioned Bye-laws, and

the Finance Department having consistently acted upon such decision through

fund releasing and administrative clearances, the plea of lack of concurrence is

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -26-

nothing but an after-thought. Administrative law does not permit the State to

disown its own acts after implementing them for years.

26. The petitioners’ case is further supported by the doctrine of legitimate

expectation, as the consistent, uninterrupted implementation of the Bye-laws for

several years created a reasonable, legitimate basis for contractual employees to

expect continuity of their pay structure and service conditions. The Supreme Court

in Brahmputra Metallics Ltd.(supra) held that legitimate expectation arises when

a public authority, through its conduct, representations, or past practice, creates an

expectation of consistent treatment, and that abrupt reversal without justifiable

reasons amounts to arbitrariness violating Article 14 of Constitution of India.

Similarly, in  Sivanandan C.T. (supra) the apex Court reiterated that where a

public authority has consistently acted in a manner inducing reliance, fairness

demands that expectations so created cannot be defeated without following due

process and giving compelling reasons.

27. The contention that NHM employees cannot claim parity with State

Government   employees   or   counterparts   under   similar  missions   is   equally

untenable. The record shows that the pattern adopted was the same as that of Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan, and having consciously adopted and implemented that pattern

for NHM employees as well, the State cannot now discriminate without rational

basis. Administrative consistency is an essential facet of Article 14, and deviation

without justification cannot be sustained. Though  the employees are contractual

but this cannot defeat the petitioners’ rights under the administrative law doctrines

applicable to all public authorities.

28. The   petitioners   are   not   seeking   regularization;  they   are   merely

seeking enforcement of the very Bye-laws under which they were hired and paid

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -27-

for years. Even if the posts are contractual,  the service conditions governing

contractual employment cannot be altered arbitrarily, especially after prolonged

implementation and consistent reaffirmation by the State itself.

29. Dependence can be placed upon in the case  of  “Asha Sharma v.

Chandigarh Administration 2011 (4) SCT 715”  wherein the court has held as

under  

22. As already noticed, fairness in State action is the essence of proper

governance. Where the authorities exercise their powers under the rules,

they are expected to exercise the discretion vested in them fairly and

with the intention to attain a balance between exercise of discretionary

power and the larger public interest sought to be achieved by such

discretion. Arbitrariness or irresponsible exercise of the power vested in

the authorities, has been a matter of great concern before the courts. 

30. The respondents’ reliance on  Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal

Staff Association (supra) to contend that “equal pay for equal work” is not a

fundamental right is misplaced, as the petitioners are not seeking parity with

Government employees; they only seek continuity of the pay structure already

granted   under   validly   approved   Bye-laws.  The   very   spirit   of   the   service

jurisprudence is that once the benefits were granted to the employees that too as

per law governing their service condition, the same cannot be withdrawn to their

disadvantage. Accordingly, the petitioners are held entitled to be pay fixation as

per bye-laws, 2018 having their legitimate rights. 

31. Further, legal position on recovery of benefits, even when granted

erroneously, is now well-settled. The Supreme Court has categorically held that

the question of recovery is governed not by rigid rights, but by equitable principles

and the avoidance of iniquitous and arbitrary outcomes. 

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -28-

32. In    Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475  , the

Supreme Court observed in para 27 as under: 

27. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against

recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess

amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on

the part of the employee and (b) if such excess payment was made by the

employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the

pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of

rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. The relief

against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the

employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the

employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered.

But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that

the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or

in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of

wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion,

courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order

for recovery of the amount paid in excess.

33. Lately the Apex court has reiterated the above said principle in the

case of “Thomas Daneil Vs. State Of Kerela 2022 INSC 498” wherein it was held

“13. In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and

Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein this court examined the validity of an

order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to

the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or

misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered

situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to

reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary

employees from such recovery. It was held thus:

"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of

the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment

to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be

in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the

citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The

right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be

compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If

the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more

unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the

corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it

would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a

situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse,

the right of the employer to recover.

xxx xxx xxx

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would

govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have

mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement.

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -29-

Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we

may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations,

wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV

service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due

to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been

made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery

is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required

to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly,

even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an

inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that

recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or

arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable

balance of the employer's right to recover."

14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that

on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the

excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In

fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a

mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed

out by the Accountant General.”

34. The Supreme Court further clarified that when excess payment is

detected after a long duration, recovery becomes  arbitrary, thereby violating

Article 14 of the Constitution. 

35. The above-discussion flows from the fundamental principle that a

government employee, who structures his life around his wages, cannot be

burdened with repayments that would cause severe financial distress. 

36. Otherwise, in the case in hand, once the petitioners are held entitled to

pay fixation as per the bye-laws, 2018, the question of recovery in any manner

would not arise. The action of the respondents to withdraw or recover the benefits

already granted is hereby set aside. The petitioners cannot be penalised for the

procedural   and   technical   failure   of   the   administrative   approvals   in   the

circumstances  involved in this bunch of writ petitions. 

CWP-3472-2025 & other connected cases -30-

Conclusion

37. Based on the preceding discussion, this Court concludes that the

respondents' action of freezing and withdrawing benefits, as outlined in the

impugned order/letter dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-11), is arbitrary and legally

unsustainable and is thus set aside. 

38. Considering that the action in question is hereby set aside as being

contrary to the doctrines of estoppel and legitimate expectation, and in violation of

the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, any amount already recovered from the petitioners shall be

refunded, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the

date of recovery until the date of its actual realization.

39. Accordingly, the bunch of civil writ petitions are hereby allowed.

40. Pending applications if any, stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)

17.11.2025                JUDGE

Anuradha/Meenu

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No

Whether reportable :Yes/No