Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 November, 2025
110+112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-32933-2025
Date of decision: 07.11.2025
Raj Kumar Nagpal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP-32937-2025
Raj Kumar Nagpal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana
for respondents No.2 to 8.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ
petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of
brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-32933-2025.
2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of certiorari for setting aside/modification of the impugned order dated
14.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1.
1 of 4
CWP-32933-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.32933 of 2025 inter
alia contends that the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk and
placed under suspension on 17.02.2022 (Annexure P-1). The departmental
enquiry was pending for over three and a half years. The petitioner applied for
enhancement of subsistence allowance on 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) in terms
of Rule 84 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 which
mandates six monthly review. The application of the petitioner was rejected
vide a non-speaking order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner
approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.17064 of 2025 which was
disposed of by this Court on 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) directing the appellate
authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner. In purported compliance, the
respondents on 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) granting a mere 20% enhancement
without retrospective effect, without arrears and without providing any reasons.
Further, the delay in deciding the departmental proceedings is not attributable
to the petitioner as discernible from the letter of the Department dated
06.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) and submits that the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by judgments passed by this Court in 'Rohtas Singh Vs. State
of Haryana and others' 2004 (2) SCT 391, 'Ram Lal Vs. UHBVNL and others'
2006(7) SCT 519, 'State of Haryana and others Vs. Krishan Lal' LPA No.2073
of 2017 (O&M) in CWP No.25410 of 2013 decided on 11.01.2018, 'Didar
Singh s/o Partap Singh, Ex. Driver Vs. The State of Punjab through Secretary,
Transport Department, Chandigarh and others' 2014(56) RCR (Civil) 3 and
'Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana and others' CWP No.768 of 2023 decided on
01.05.2023.
2 of 4
CWP-32933-2025
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-32937-2025 submits
that the petitioner is entitled to HRA during the period of suspension in terms of
Rule 85 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 . The respondents
have not paid HRA along with the subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension in violation of the aforementioned rule. Further the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP-
6154-2020, titled as Dr. Hardeep Lal Joshi and others vs Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra and others, decided on 01.07.2025.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for
respondents No.2 to 8, submits that Employees Grievance Redressal Committee
has been constituted under the Haryana State Litigation Policy, 2025 and all
these matters would be considered and decided by the said Committee.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would
be satisfied in case the issue involved in the present petition is considered and
decided by Employees Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the
Haryana State Litigation Policy, 2025, in the light of the judgments rendered by
this Court in CWP-2457-2025, titled as H.C. Sharma vs State of Haryana and
others, decided on 30.07.2025 and CWP-28761-2025, titled as Ranjit Singh vs
State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.09.2025, by passing a speaking
order in a time bound manner.
7. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 8 submits that he has no
objection, in case a direction is issued to the Employees Grievance Redressal
Committee constituted under the Haryana State Litigation Policy, 2025, for
3 of 4
CWP-32933-2025
time-bound consideration and decision of the issue involved in the present
petition by passing a speaking order.
8. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel
for the petitioner, the Employees Grievance Redressal Committee constituted
under the Haryana State Litigation Policy, 2025 is directed to consider the issue
involved in the present petition and pass a speaking order in the light of H.C.
Sharma's case (supra) and Ranjit Singh's case (supra), after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the
date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken
thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is
found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted to him forthwith.
9. Disposed of, accordingly.
10. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
07.11.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
