Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neetu Bhatia And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 October, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137562
CWP-28275-2024 -1-
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-28275-2018
Date of Decision: 21.10.2024
Neetu Bhatia and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioners, pay-scale of Rs.9300- 34800+3200 GP, w.e.f. the date of their joining i.e. 2011, as is being granted to other counterparts of the petitioners in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in CWP-25030-2013 titled as "Sushma and others Vs. State of Haryana and others" as per the principles of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 titled as "State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh & others" and also by this Court in a number of cases and pursuant thereto, to release the arrears of revised salary w.e.f. their date of joining in 2011 along with interest @18% per annum.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-10-2024 21:27:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137562 CWP-28275-2024 -2- case where the petitioners are working as Librarians in the respondent- Department and were selected on the basis of advertisement and proper procedure was followed. He further submitted that the petitioners are seeking parity with the employees, who had joined on the basis of same advertisement and also for the same post on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work' and their prayer is squarely covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP-25030-2013 titled as "Sushma and others Vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on 10.10.2022 vide Annexure P-5. He also submitted that a legal notice dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) was issued by the petitioners, but till date no action has been taken by the respondents in this regard. He submitted that at this stage, the petitioners will be satisfied in case their legal notice (Annexure P-7) is directed to be decided by passing a speaking order in accordance with law and also in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a time bound manner.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that she has no objection, in case, a direction is issued to the respondents for considering and deciding the legal notice issued by the petitioners vide Annexure P-7 in accordance with law and within a fixed time framework.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, without calling for the reply from the respondents and without observing anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-10-2024 21:27:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137562 CWP-28275-2024 -3- No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the legal notice dated 06.05.2024 issued by the petitioners vide Annexure P-7 strictly in accordance with law by passing a well-reasoned speaking order in the light of the aforesaid judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sushma and others case (supra) within a period of three months from today.
21.10.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 25-10-2024 21:27:05 :::