High Court Releases Attached Salaries Of Haryana Officials After Compliance With Court Orders, Unconditional Apology

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the Haryana Higher Education Department's failure to comply with an undertaking given before the Court to grant notional appointment benefits to a candidate who was ultimately appointed as Assistant Professor (Commerce) after successfully litigating his claim.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the respondents' conduct reflected “administrative apathy” and that the petitioner had been unnecessarily compelled to approach the High Court for the third time despite an express undertaking given before the contempt court.

The Court had earlier directed the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Haryana and the Director General of Higher Education, Haryana to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for wilful non-compliance.

The matter arose from the petitioner's earlier litigation concerning his appointment as Assistant Professor (Commerce). The petitioner had challenged the denial of appointment despite being eligible, and the High Court had allowed his earlier writ petition on July 2, 2019.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the petitioner was eventually issued an appointment letter on November 14, 2023. Subsequently, during contempt proceedings in COCP No.778 of 2020, the State made an undertaking before the Court that the petitioner would be granted the benefit of notional appointment as Assistant Professor (College Cadre) under the DESM category, as per his merit position, from the date of appointment of his juniors.

The undertaking was recorded by the Court on May 21, 2025, and the contempt petition was disposed of on that basis. The State had undertaken to provide the benefit within two weeks.

However, despite the undertaking, the benefit was not granted. The petitioner was instead informed through an order dated July 30, 2025 that his claim for notional appointment/pay fixation and seniority could not be accepted.

When the matter came before Justice Brar, the Court noted that the State did not dispute that the relevant aspect concerning the petitioner's entitlement to notional benefits from the date his juniors were appointed had not been considered while passing the impugned order.

The Court, in its July 22, 2026 order, expressed serious concern over the respondents' conduct, observing that despite the explicit undertaking before the contempt court, the authorities had neither challenged that order nor taken meaningful steps to comply with it.

The Court remarked that the respondents' conduct appeared to demonstrate “no regard for the Rule of Law or the majesty of justice” and described it as a “classic instance of administrative apathy.”

The Court further observed that the petitioner had been unnecessarily compelled to approach the High Court for the third time and held that the case was fit for exemplary costs to curb unwarranted and protracted litigation.

Consequently, the Court issued notice to the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Haryana and the Director General of Higher Education, Haryana, directing them to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against them for wilful non-compliance.

Pending the matter, the Court also directed attachment of one-third of the salaries of both senior officials in terms of the earlier contempt court order.

When the matter came up on August 12, 2026, the State placed on record affidavits dated August 11, 2026 filed by A.K. Singh, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, and S. Narayanan, IFS, Director General, Higher Education, Haryana.

The State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner's claim had since been considered and that all admissible benefits, in accordance with the undertaking given before the contempt court, had been granted to him.

The State also submitted that an “unqualified and unconditional apology” had been tendered for the delay on the part of the concerned officers in complying with the Court's order.

The petitioner's counsel confirmed that the benefits had been released and submitted that the writ petition had consequently become infructuous.

In view of the subsequent compliance, the Court disposed of the writ petition.The Court also ordered that the one-third salary of the concerned officers, which had been attached pursuant to its July 22, 2026 order, be released forthwith.

Case: Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Click here to read order