The Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh Bench) has clarified that where Law Officers are engaged by the State on a full-time basis, are prohibited from private practice, and their service conditions substantially mirror those of regular employees, they cannot be denied essential service benefits like Leave Travel Concession (LTC), medical reimbursement, and earned leave solely on the ground that their engagement is “contractual”.
To do so without a rational basis constitutes arbitrary and selective discrimination, which is impermissible under constitutional principles of equality, fairness, and legitimate expectation, added the Court, while emphasising that the substance of the employment relationship must prevail over its form.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that the legal profession is sui generis (unique in nature), service-oriented, and cannot be equated with any other traditional profession or commercial venture. It recognized the indispensable role of advocates in the justice delivery system, upholding the rule of law, and preserving the independence of the judiciary.
The Single Judge explained that the engagement of lawyers by the State as Law Officers acquires a constitutional dimension, and their role is not transient or ornamental but is structural to constitutional governance, and they occupy a position of trust and responsibility. The Judge observed that the engagement cannot be dismissed as merely “contractual” to deny fair and equitable service benefits.
The Bench cautioned to look beyond the label of “contractual engagement” to the reality of the service relationship, especially where it involves exclusivity, continuity, and institutional integration. The Bench also found that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, received salaries in regular pay scales from the Consolidated Fund, and were prohibited from private practice, making their role institutional and continuous.
Moving further, the Bench held that any classification of employees must be based on an intelligible differentia with a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Since the State failed to provide any rational basis for denying benefits like LTC, earned leave, and medical reimbursement to full-time Law Officers while granting them every other attribute of regular service, the Bench termed such denial as a ‘residual relic of terminology’.
The Bench pointed out that by consistently extending pay scale revisions and other allowances in line with regular government employees, the State created a legitimate expectation that the petitioners would not be selectively excluded from core service benefits. Hence, any deviation from this established practice must be reasonable, which the State failed to demonstrate.
Briefly, the petitioners were engaged as Deputy Advocate Generals (DAGs) and Assistant Advocate Generals (AAGs) in the office of the Advocate General, Haryana, following an advertisement and issuance of engagement letters. Their engagement was on a contractual basis, extendable annually based on performance, as per the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016.
Initially, their pay was fixed under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), but subsequently, their pay was revised as per the 7th CPC, fixing the basic pay for DAGs at Rs. 1,40,900 (Level 19) and for AAGs at Rs. 93,800 (Level 13). However, following an audit objection, show-cause notices were issued for the re-fixation of their pay at a lower level and for the recovery of alleged excess payments. This was based on a Finance Department letter dated January 2018 that provided for lower pay scales.
Accordingly, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the recovery notices and also claimed entitlements such as fixed medical allowance, medical reimbursement, Leave Travel Concession (LTC), and earned leave. During the proceedings, the respondent-State conceded to most of the petitioners’ claims, including the higher pay scale, revision of the increment date, and enhancement of the fixed medical allowance. The dispute before the Court was thus narrowed to the petitioners’ entitlement to medical reimbursement, LTC, and earned leave.
Appearances:
Advocates Shruti Jain Goyal and Komal Klana, for the Petitioner
Addl. AG Haryana Amit Sahni, for the Respondent
