AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 245 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
Rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent(s) to grant them pay scale at par with drivers of other departments of State Government.
The petitioners are holding rank of Constable-Driver. They have been appointed as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana). They are claiming that they should be paid salary at par with drivers of other departments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioners are getting many allowances being members of police force, however, they are not paid salary at par with drivers of other Departments. The discrimination is writ large.
Learned State counsel submits that issues involved is no more res integra and stands covered by order dated 16.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-19902-2013 titled as “Rohtash Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) expressed his inability to controvert applicability of the aforesaid order to the instant case.
The petition(s) stands dismissed in the light of Rohtash Kumar (supra).
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
