Full-Time Law Officers Not ‘Mere Contractual Appointees’: P&H High Court Grants LTC, Medical Reimbursement & Earned Leave to AAGs/DAGs
Case Name: Shruti Jain & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 20 February 2026
Citation: CWP-16828-2021
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that full-time Deputy Advocate Generals and Assistant Advocate Generals engaged by the State of Haryana cannot be denied core service benefits such as Leave Travel Concession (LTC), earned leave and medical reimbursement merely on the nomenclature of “contractual engagement”. Where law officers are appointed against sanctioned posts, draw salary under regular pay scales, receive increments and allowances, are barred from private practice and discharge continuous institutional responsibilities, selective denial of essential service benefits is arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles of equality and legitimate expectation.
Summary: The petitioners, appointed as Deputy Advocate Generals (DAGs) and Assistant Advocate Generals (AAGs) pursuant to Advertisement dated 29.12.2017 and engagement letters dated 30.06.2018, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of communications relating to pay fixation and recovery of alleged excess salary, and for grant of service benefits including correct pay scale, increment from January 2019, fixed medical allowance, medical reimbursement, LTC and earned leave .
Initially appointed under 6th CPC scales, their pay was revised under the 7th CPC vide office order dated 18.08.2018. Subsequent audit objections led to show-cause notices and directions for recovery of alleged excess fixation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State conceded most of the reliefs including higher pay scale, increment from 1st January 2019 instead of 1st July 2019, and enhancement of fixed medical allowance. The dispute ultimately survived only with respect to denial of medical reimbursement, LTC and earned leave .
The State contended that the petitioners were contractual appointees governed by the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016 and could not claim parity with regular Government employees. It was argued that their year-to-year engagement disentitled them from benefits such as LTC and earned leave under applicable service rules.
Rejecting the State’s stand, the Court framed the core issue as whether the petitioners could be denied core service benefits solely on the basis of the label of “contractual engagement” . The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the status and role of law officers, emphasizing the constitutional significance of the legal profession and the institutional responsibility borne by Government counsel. Relying upon precedent, the Court observed that the legal profession is sui generis and occupies a unique position in the justice delivery system .
The Court noted that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, drew salary under the Haryana Revised Pay Rules, 2016, received dearness allowance and annual increments, were paid from the Consolidated Fund under the salary head, and were expressly prohibited from private practice. Their work included representing the State before constitutional courts, rendering legal opinions, vetting pleadings and advising departments on a full-time basis .
In these circumstances, the State, having conceded parity in pay and increments, could not selectively deny LTC, earned leave and medical reimbursement without rational basis. The Court held that public employment, even when contractual in form, remains subject to constitutional discipline. Classification based merely on nomenclature, without intelligible differentia or nexus, cannot withstand scrutiny .
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was also invoked, as the engagement letters provided for “usual allowances as sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time” and the State had consistently extended pay revisions and allowances akin to regular employees .
Concluding that denial of LTC, earned leave and medical reimbursement would amount to imposing the rigours of public service without affording its minimal securities, the Court held the petitioners entitled to the claimed benefits .
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to release benefits including LTC, medical reimbursement and other emoluments to the officers appointed as AAGs/DAGs, including the petitioners, within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order .