Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saktar Singh And Anr vs Guru Nanak Dev University And Anr on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060189
WP-10969-2022
C 2024:PHHC:060189
and connected matters 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
203
WP-10969-2022 (O&M)
C
Date of Decision: 23.04.2024
1 )
Saktar Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Guru Nanak Dev University and another
...Respondents
2 ) CWP-20797-2017(O&M)
Balwinder Rai and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
3 ) CWP-1943-2023 (O&M)
Chanan Ram and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY **** Present: r. Ajayvir Singh, Advocate M for the petitioners in CWP-20797-2017. r. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the petitioners in M CWP-1943-2023. r. Davinder Singh and Mr. Yagyaang Ajay, Advocates M for the petitioners in CWP-10969-2022. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondent-GNDU 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:56:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060189 WP-10969-2022 C 2024:PHHC:060189 and connected matters 2 ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY J. (Oral) 1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Theprayerinthesecasesisfordirectingtherespondentstogrant the petitioners the minimum of pay scale, in light of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". 3. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners, who have been serving the respondent-University in different capacities as security guard, Driver, etc., are entitled tograntofminimumofpayscale,theircases being covered on all fours in their favour by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 148, following which, this Court in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 26.02.2024, allowed similar relief, relevant paras whereof read thus: " 40. FromtheconjointreadingofjudgmentsofSupreme CourtinJagjitSingh(supra),BahadurSingh(supra),Uma Devi (supra) and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time employees who are working for few hours cannot claim payparity.Dailywageworkerswhoworkat parwithregularemployeesthoughcannotclaimpayparity with regular employees yet are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes dearness allowanceandgrade pay.Thepetitionershereinareworkingforlast30-40years and they are not part timer whereas they are daily wager and work at par with regular employees which is more evident from the fact that few of their colleagues have already been absorbed against sanctioned posts. The majority of the petitioners are not absorbed due to non-availabilityofsanctioned/regularpostsortheyhadnot completedserviceof10yearsatthetimeofintroductionof 2006Policy.Thepetitionerswhodespitehavingrendereda quite long service, may be more than 30 years, if not regularized, deserve at leastminimumpaywhichincludes minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowanceandgrade pay. Accordingly, it is concluded thatRespondent-Stateis liable to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:56:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060189 WP-10969-2022 C 2024:PHHC:060189 and connected matters 3 a llowance and grade pay to all those petitioners who neither have been/are regularized nor are part timer. 41. Therespondentinitsreplyandduringthecourseof arguments has pleaded that petitioners are paid monthly lump sum amount which is more than rate prescribed by DeputyCommissionerandminimumofpayscaleavailable to regular employees. The dichotomy between figure of State and Petitioners has erupted due to non-inclusion of dearness allowance and grade pay. The State in view of above referred judgments is bound to add DA and GP while calculating minimum of pay scale. 42. Keeping in mind financial burdenonStateexchequer, binding precedents, rights of petitioners as wellasequity, this Court hereby holds and gives its imprimatur to the State to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those employees who are not part timers and have completed service of 10 years. xx xx xx Conclusion: 47. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court comes to conclusion as below: i) This Court in the normal course cannot ask State to create or sanction posts. ii) The petitioners who had completedserviceof10years by the end of December' 2006, either at present are in service or have alreadyretired,areentitledtoregularpost and they cannot bedeniedregularizationonthegroundof lack of sanctioned post or minimum education qualification. To avoid burden on State exchequer, it is clarified that fromthedeemeddateoftheirregularization, they shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearnessallowanceandgradepaytillthedateofthisorder and thereafter regular pay scale. iii) The petitioners who are still in service but did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006 would form part of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The State, in view of long service of these employees, would not insist for minimum qualification. They from the date of completing service of 10 years would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance plus grade pay tillthedatetheyareregularized in terms of 2023 Policy. iv) The petitioners who did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006 and during the pendency of present litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay from the date of completing service of 10 years till the date of their retirement or death. v) The petitioners who have already been regularized by 31.12.2016shallnotbeentitledtoanyadditionalfinancial 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:56:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060189 WP-10969-2022 C 2024:PHHC:060189 and connected matters 4 b enefit because they are already getting higheramountof salary for last couple of years. vi) The respondent-State shallnotbeliabletopayinterest on arrears arising on account of re-fixation of pay." 4. Learned counsel appearing for the University as also for the State, have been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 5. Inviewoftheaforesaid,thepresentwritpetitionsaredisposedof in terms ofAmrish Sharma(supra). 6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 23.04.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:56:02 :::