P&H High Court Directs 7th Pay Commission Benefits For National Health Mission Contractual Employees In Haryana

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that contractual employees engaged under the National Health Mission (NHM), Haryana, are entitled to the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission, observing that the State cannot arbitrarily deny parity once it has consciously adopted a structured pay framework and extended earlier pay commission benefits. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 206].

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The State, being a model employer, is expected to act with fairness, transparency and consistency. Administrative lethargy, inter-departmental indecision or shifting stands cannot become instruments for defeating the legitimate claims of employees who have served the public healthcare system of the State for years together. An employee cannot be left to wander through the corridors of bureaucracy in search of a right that is otherwise due to him. The State cannot be permitted to convert its own administrative shortcomings into a defence against a lawful claim, for that would amount to allowing the gatekeeper of justice to become its obstacle."

The Court further added, Constitutional governance demands higher standards of conduct, accountability and fairness from the State and its instrumentalities, particularly in matters affecting the rights and entitlements of those who have dedicated their years in public service.

The Court pointed that, the State Health Society recommended similar benefits for NHM employees, acknowledging their invaluable contribution, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the proposal ultimately received the approval of the Chief Minister. In these circumstances, the continued denial of the benefits lacks any rational basis and bears the unmistakable imprint of arbitrariness.

It pointed that, "since the Service Bye-laws were duly approved with the concurrence of the Finance Department and formed the basis for extending 6th Pay Commission benefits to NHM employees and the fact that the same framework governs SSA/HSSPP employees, who have already been granted the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission. Thus, the carving out of a distinction between both set of employees by the State for the purpose of denial of the 7th Pay Commission is discriminatory."

These observations were made while hearing a batch of petitions,involving NHM employees working as Staff Nurses, ANMs, Pharmacists, Lab Technicians and other allied posts.

The petitioners sought revision of their pay scales in terms of the 7th Pay Commission along with arrears, relying on the Service Bye-laws, 2018, under which they were already granted benefits of the 6th Pay Commission.

The Court noted that the State had consciously adopted parity between NHM employees and employees of the Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad while implementing the 6th Pay Commission. It held that once such parity was established and implemented, the State could not subsequently create an artificial distinction while extending benefits of the 7th Pay Commission.

“The State, having itself adopted the pay structure in question, cannot subsequently choose not to follow the very policy it has framed,” the Court observed, terming such action as “manifestly arbitrary.”

NHM Employees Integral To State Functions

Rejecting the State's argument that NHM employees are merely contractual or scheme-based workers, the Court emphasized that they form the backbone of public healthcare delivery.

The Court highlighted their role during the COVID-19 pandemic, observing that they worked under adverse conditions to ensure uninterrupted healthcare services, and therefore cannot be treated as detached from the State machinery.

Service Bye-laws Create Enforceable Rights

The Bench held that the claim of the petitioners was not based on regularisation but on enforcement of approved Service Bye-laws, 2018, which introduced a structured pay regime including pay scales, increments, and allowances.

It found that once such a framework is implemented with approval of the Finance Department and acted upon for years, the State cannot deny consequential benefits by taking inconsistent stands.

Equal Pay For Equal Work Applies

Relying on settled law, including State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, the Court reiterated that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies even to temporary or contractual employees when they discharge similar duties as regular employees.

The Court found that denial of 7th Pay Commission benefits, despite similar duties and an existing pay structure, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legitimate Expectation And Administrative Fairness

The Court also invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, noting that consistent application of Service Bye-laws and governmental approvals created a reasonable expectation in favour of employees.

It observed that administrative delay or indecision cannot defeat rights that have already been acknowledged at the highest executive level, including approval by the Chief Minister for extending 7th Pay Commission benefits.

State Cannot Approbate And Reprobate

Rejecting the State's plea that the Bye-laws lacked proper approval, the Court held that the State cannot “approbate and reprobate” after having implemented the Bye-laws and granted financial benefits under them for years.

Hence, the Court held that,  "the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission to the petitioners despite approved Service Bye-laws, Finance Department concurrence, executive approval and parity maintained with employees of Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad is unsustainable in law."

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioners and all similarly situated employees working under the National Health Mission, Haryana as per the 7th Pay commission with effect from the date the same became applicable to similarly situated employees governed by the corresponding framework i.e. 01.01.2016, and the consequential benefits including arrears flowing from the revised pay scale shall enure to the petitioners together with interest thereon @6% per annum.

"However such arrears shall be confined and circumscribed strictly to a period of 38 months immediately preceding the date of institution of the respective writ petitions the needful exercise shall be undertaken and brought to fruition with due expedition and in any case within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment", it added.

Title: PRIYAWART AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Click here to read order