Chandigarh, Feb. 24 -- : The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that deputy advocates-general (DAGs) and assistant advocates-general in Haryana are entitled to leave travel concession (LTC), medical reimbursement and other emoluments. While allowing a 2021 petition by a group of state's law officers, the high court bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil said that they are performing full-time duties and could not be treated as "contractual". They had demanded to grant fixed medical allowance arguing that their appointments are against sanctioned posts, on a regular revised pay scale under the HCS (RP) Rules, 2016, with "usual allowances as sanctioned by the Haryana government from time to time". It was argued that in law and in practice, their status is indistinguishable from other government employees and as such, mere nomenclature such as "engagement" cannot be used to deny them LTC, earned leave and all other kinds of leave and medical benefits which are part of the normal incidents of government service. The court observed that public employment, "even when contractual is subject to constitutional discipline," and where the relationship reflects "exclusivity, continuity and institutional integration, the court must look beyond labels to reality." It also took note of the fact that petitioners are prohibited from private practice and discharged responsibilities beyond court appearances, including rendering legal opinions, vetting pleadings and assisting departments administratively. The court noted that the state has conceded parity in pay and increments, but is seeking to deny leave travel concession, earned leave and medical reimbursement on the ground that their engagement was contractual under the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016. "This argument, if accepted, would permit the state to appropriate the services of full-time law officers with all incidents of regular service, yet withhold essential benefits that secure rest, health and familial well-being. Constitutional jurisprudence does not permit such selective parity," the court remarked. The court cautioned that restricting entitlements on the basis of nomenclature alone would be "arbitrary, undermine the dignity of the profession, and contravene the principles of equality, consistency, and legitimate expectation inherent in constitutional governance."...