State Of Haryana And Another vs Varun Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 1674 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

226+234


(1)                                            LPA-1598-2019 (O&M)


State of Haryana & another

                                                            ....Appellants
                                  VERSUS

Varun Gupta                                                 ....Respondent


(2)                                            LPA-674-2021 (O&M)


State of Haryana & another

                                                            ....Appellants
                                  VERSUS

Nitesh Sharma                                               ....Respondent

                   Date of decision: 15.03.2022


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SANDHAWALIA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI


Present:-   Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the appellants.

            Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the respondent
            in LPA-1598-2019.

            Mr.Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate, for the respondent
            in LPA-674-2021.

            (The proceedings are being conducted through video
            conferencing, as per instructions.)


G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

Present letters patent appeal bearing LPA-1598-2019 arise

out of the judgment dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge

1 of 4

LPA-1598-2019 (O&M) & LPA-674-2021 (O&M) -2-

in CWP-4881-2018 'Varun Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another'

whereby directions had been issued to the State to implement the

instructions dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-6) and grant the benefit of

minimum of the Pay-Scales to the contractual employees. Directions were

thus issued to pay the same within a period of 3 months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the said order, failing which, interest @ 12%

per annum was liable to be paid. Costs of Rs.25,000/- were also imposed

upon the Director General, Department of Women & Child Development,

which was to be recovered from his salary, for not addressing the issue of

the petitioner.

Similarly, LPA-674-2021 has been filed against the

judgment passed in CWP-38238-2018 'Nitesh Sharma State of

Haryana and another' wherein the above view has been followed by

another Co-ordinate Bench on 16.03.2021. In the said case, the

respondents have been directed to pay the minimum Pay-Scales from the

date of joining till date within a period of 3 months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the order.

The issue already stands settled by the Apex Court in State

of Punjab & others Vs. Jagjit Singh & others (2017) 1 SCC 148

regarding the grant of minimum Pay-Scale. It is not disputed that the

State itself has issued the instructions dated 03.11.2017 which provide

that the benefit is to flow from 01.11.2017. In such circumstances, we do

not find any justification on behalf of the State that he is not entitled for

the benefits of minimum of Pay-Scales, as has been held by the Apex

2 of 4

LPA-1598-2019 (O&M) & LPA-674-2021 (O&M) -3-

Court and to distinguish the same. Thus, there is no valid basis not to

grant the said benefits to the writ petitioner who has been appointed as a

Assistant at Headquarters on contractual basis @ Rs.8000/- per month.

The said instructions would be equally applicable to the writ petitioner

and the distinction which has now been sought to be made that the

appointment was under the Special Cell for Women & Child to work on

the issue of Protection From Domestic Violence Act and Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act, 2006 and he is not liable, is not justifiable in any

manner from the appointment letters.

In such circumstances, the respondents were bound by the

instructions dated 03.11.2017 whereby the payment is to be made on the

minimum of the Pay-Scales given to similarly situated persons and no

fault can be found in the orders of the Learned Single Judge. From the

perusal of the record, nothing could be shown that the writ petitioner was

discharging duties which was less than the similarly situated persons who

had been appointed as Assistant on contractual basis in the Headquarters

to perform the same nature of duties as a person who was appointed on

regular basis. Therefore, the distinction which has now been sought to be

made, is without any basis. Accordingly, LPA-1598-2019 is dismissed.

However, in LPA-674-2021, the Learned Single Judge has

apparently issued directions that the petitioner would be entitled for the

minimum Pay-Scales from the date of joining which was 21.08.2017

(Annexure P-3). As noticed, the instructions were issued for payment

from a specific date and once the State has taken a categorical decision,

3 of 4

LPA-1598-2019 (O&M) & LPA-674-2021 (O&M) -4-

the entitlement would be from 01.11.2017 and not from the date of

joining and even the claim of the writ petitioner was on the basis of the

instructions dated 03.11.2017. Similar argument has been raised that

appointment of the respondent was as Assistant who was under the State

Resource Centre for Women on a consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per

month. Therefore, the said instructions would not be applicable, is

without any basis as nothing could be shown from the said instructions

that the persons appointed under the said scheme would not be entitled

for the benefits of the judgment passed in Jagjit Singh (supra) as per

instructions dated 03.11.2017 as per the reasoning given above.

Resultantly, LPA-674-2021 is allowed, to the extent that the amount

payable would be from 01.11.2017.

Since the main appeals are disposed of, all pending CM

applications also stands disposed of.

(G. S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE

March 15, 2022 sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4