The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that decisions of a statutory Board of Directors on pay parity for executive employees attain finality and cannot be unilaterally overturned by subordinate management. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative bodies must comply with binding institutional determinations, especially after judicial affirmation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are employees of the Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC), holding executive posts. They sought implementation of equal pay scales as recommended by a committee of the Board of Directors and subsequently approved by the Board itself. Despite multiple judicial orders affirming this entitlement, the Managing Director of HSIIDC issued orders rejecting their claims, prompting this writ petition.
Key Facts
- On 08.08.2011, a committee of Directors, headed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce, Haryana, recommended pay bands and Grade Pay equal to those of the professional stream for executive employees.
- The Board of Directors accepted the recommendations in toto by order dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P-26).
- The recommendations were not implemented, leading to litigation.
- In Manohar Lal Sharma and others v. Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., the Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on 29.01.2015 (Annexure P-34).
- The Corporation appealed; the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order on 27.08.2015 (Annexure P-36).
- The Corporation filed SLPs (C) Nos. 14434-14435 of 2017; the Supreme Court dismissed them on 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-39).
- The petitioners filed CWP No. 26483 of 2023 seeking implementation; this Court, by order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-43), directed the respondents to consider the claim in light of the final judgments in Manohar Lal Sharma and subsequent orders.
- Despite this direction, the Managing Director passed speaking orders on 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-41) and 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-44), rejecting the petitioners’ claims.
Procedural History
- 08.08.2011: Committee recommends equal pay scales for executive employees.
- 22.12.2011: Board of Directors approves recommendations in toto.
- 29.01.2015: Single Judge, CWP No. 6090 of 2013, allows claim for equal pay.
- 27.08.2015: Division Bench affirms Single Judge’s order in LPA No. 1252 of 2015.
- 11.04.2023: Supreme Court dismisses SLPs, finalizing the legal position.
- 06.08.2025: This Court, in CWP No. 26483 of 2023, directs respondents to consider petitioners’ claims in light of final judgments.
- 12.03.2024: Managing Director issues speaking order rejecting claim (Annexure P-41).
- 04.02.2026: Managing Director issues second speaking order rejecting claim (Annexure P-44).
- 16.04.2026: Present writ petition (CWP No. 11313 of 2026) decided by the Court.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contend that the Board’s 2011 decision, affirmed by two levels of this Court and the Supreme Court, is binding and final. They argue that the Managing Director, as an administrative officer, has no authority to override a decision of the highest decision-making body of the Corporation.
The respondents, through their counsel, admitted that the judgments in Manohar Lal Sharma and subsequent orders have attained finality and cannot be challenged.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the speaking orders dated 12.03.2024 and 04.02.2026, and a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Directors to implement the 1991, 1993, and 2011 decisions granting equal pay scales.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a subordinate officer, such as the Managing Director, can issue a speaking order rejecting a claim that has been finally adjudicated by the Board of Directors and affirmed by higher courts, including the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh argued that the Board of Directors is the supreme decision-making body of the Corporation, and its 2011 order, having been upheld by this Court and the Supreme Court, is binding on all organs of the Corporation. He cited State of Haryana v. Raghav Lal and Union of India v. R.S. Sharma to emphasize that administrative officers cannot re-adjudicate matters settled by superior authorities. He further contended that the issuance of speaking orders after a clear directive from this Court amounts to contempt of court and violates the doctrine of finality.
For the Respondent
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3, did not dispute the finality of the judgments in Manohar Lal Sharma or the binding nature of the Board’s 2011 decision. He conceded that the orders dated 12.03.2024 and 04.02.2026 were legally unsustainable in light of the settled position.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the legal position on equal pay scales for executive employees has been conclusively settled through a chain of judicial pronouncements culminating in the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court on 11.04.2023. The Board of Directors’ decision dated 22.12.2011, therefore, is not merely a recommendation but a binding administrative determination.
"The Managing Director, being an executive officer, cannot override the decision of the Board of Directors, especially when such decision has been affirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court."
The Court emphasized that the directive issued on 06.08.2025 in CWP No. 26483 of 2023 was clear: the claim was to be considered in light of the final judgments. The issuance of speaking orders rejecting the claim thereafter was not merely an error - it was a defiance of judicial authority. The Court held that such actions undermine the rule of law and the principle of res judicata in administrative law.
The Court further noted that the doctrine of audi alteram partem requires that the petitioners be afforded a fair hearing before any final decision is taken. The Managing Director’s orders, while detailed, were not a reconsideration but a rejection without lawful authority.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court set aside the speaking orders dated 12.03.2024 and 04.02.2026. The Board of Directors is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ claim for equal pay scales in light of the judgments in Manohar Lal Sharma and subsequent orders, after affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Board must complete this process within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Board Decisions Are Binding on Management
- Practitioners must argue that any subordinate officer or departmental authority acting under a statutory corporation cannot override decisions of its governing Board once judicially affirmed.
- A speaking order issued after a final judicial determination constitutes an abuse of power and is liable to be quashed.
Finality of Judicial Pronouncements in Service Matters
- Once a claim is adjudicated by a High Court and the Supreme Court declines to interfere, the matter is closed for all practical purposes.
- Re-litigation through administrative channels, even under the guise of "reconsideration," is impermissible.
Duty to Afford Hearing Before Final Rejection
- Even when a claim is bound by precedent, the affected employees must be heard before a final administrative decision is rendered.
- Failure to do so renders the order voidable, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.
