Haryana Govt's Withdrawal Of Clerk's Increment Prima Facie Violates Undertaking Before Larger Bench: P&H High Court Issues Contempt Notice

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the Haryana Government's action in withdrawing an increment earlier granted to an employee of the Women and Child Development Department prima facie violates an undertaking recorded before a Larger Bench of the Court regarding the applicability of the State Eligibility Test in Computer Appreciation and Applications (SETC).

The Court has issued notice of accusation under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and directed Respondent No. 1 to appear in person on 28.04.2026.

Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said, "Once a statement has been made on behalf of Government before Larger Bench which is reflected in para. 3 of the order dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure P-2) and even departmental notification has been issued informing about the said decision taken by the Government by way of issuing instructions dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure P-4), withdrawal of the benefit initially granted to the petitioner is, prima face violative of the statement recorded/undertaking given before Larger Bench on behalf of the respondents."

The Court added that such, withdrawal of benefit order dated 16.09.2020 which is under the signatures of Dr. Renu S Phullia, respondent make out a prima facie case for issuance of notice of accusation/charges under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Several employees of the Department of Women and Child Development had earlier approached the High Court challenging the State Government's notification dated 17.11.2018, which made SETC compulsory for those who all currently working Clerks and All candidates seeking promotion to Clerk, and all candidates seeking direct recruitment as Clerk.

A Larger Bench of the Court, via order dated 04.09.2018, directed the Chief Secretary to examine the matter personally. Subsequently, in an order dated 21.02.2019, State counsel clarified that 07.11.2013 (the date of an earlier notification) would operate as the cut-off date, meaning, All persons promoted as Clerk after 07.11.2013 must mandatorily pass the SETC.

This cut-off was accepted by the Larger Bench. Following this, the petitioner's earlier writ petition was disposed of on 08.05.2019.

Pursuant to the undertaking before the Larger Bench, the Under Secretary, General Services-II, issued departmental instructions dated 01.05.2019, communicating to all Departments that all persons promoted as Clerk after 07.11.2013 shall be required to clear the SETC.

Only after these instructions were issued was the petitioner's writ petition disposed of.

The petitioner was then granted increment w.e.f. 19.10.2006 by order dated 24.12.2019. However, this benefit was later withdrawn unilaterally by the Director, Women & Child Development Department, via order dated 18.09.2020.

In the reply filed, the respondents contended that the question of departmental test was not decided by the High Court earlier. The petitioner had not been exempted from passing the type test in CWP-18084-2016.

The Court held that, once a categorical statement had been made before the Larger Bench—reflected in para 3 of order dated 21.02.2019—and departmental instructions dated 01.05.2019 had been issued in pursuance of that statement, the subsequent withdrawal of the benefit earlier granted to the petitioner was, prima facie violative of the statement undertaking given before the Larger Bench.

The matter is now adjourned to April 28.

Title: Chander Pal v. Renu S Phullia and another

Click here to read order