Suresh Kumar And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1836 P&H

215
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
                                              CWP-20619-2017
                               Date of decision: March 21, 2022

Suresh Kumar and another
                                                                 ...Petitioners
                                     Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                               ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:   Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the petitioners.

           Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana.

           (Presence marked through Video-Conference).

                                     *****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Grievance of the petitioners,who were appointed initially on daily

wages as Class-IV employees in the office of Executive Engineer, Public

Health Engineering Division,Gurugram, District Gurugram is qua non-grant

of minimum of the pay-scales in the category in which they belong,alleging

that the same is not only in violation of the Apex Court judgment rendered in

the State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh and others, reported as 2016 (4)

SCT 641, but also violative of administrative instructions dated 03.11.2017

issued by the State of Haryana.

2. Petitioners were initially engaged on limited term on monthly

basis on consolidated remuneration of Rs.3,000/-per month in the year 2015

with the following terms and conditions:-

"I. The services offered to you is purely temporary and only against stop gap arrangement.

II. No TA/DA for joining the above post will be given.

1 of 3

III. You shall be liable to work anywhere in Haryana on the installations falling within Public Health Department. IV. No allowance of any kind and rent free accommodation etc. shall be admissible.

V. Your services can be terminated at any time without notice. VI. You must be in sound mental and physical Health."

3. In course of arguments, learned State counsel opposed the

petition on the ground that ratio of Jagjit Singh's case (supra) is not

applicable to the case of the petitioners as they were engaged on temporary

basis and not against the vacant sanctioned posts. Therefore, they are not

entitled to the pay-scale meant for the post of PumpAttendants. Since the

petitioners have confined their claim for payment of salaries in terms of

minimum of the pay-scale and not on parity with the other Pump Attendants,

therefore, applicability of the judgment ibid is not of much consequence in

the instant writ proceedings.

4. The unequivocal stand taken in the return filed to the written statement

in para-2 of the preliminary submissions is as below:-

"2. That, the Government of Haryana has circulated instructions vide No.16/36/2016-3GS-II dated 03.11.2017, whereby, the Government has decided as under:-

I. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' shall be applicable to the contractual employees subject to application of parameters of the principle of 'equal pay equal work' as summarized in para 42 of the judgment. In respect of contractual pay, these employees shall be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of the categories to which they belong but would not be entitled to any of the allowances attached to the post.

II. 'Equal pay equal work' principle shall be initially applied to employees engaged under outsourcing policy-II w.e.f. 01.11.2017.

The copy of these instructions dated 03.11.2017 is attached as Annexure R-2. Further, as per Part-II of the outsourcing policy dated 06.04.2015 the persons are engaged on contract basis against sanctioned vacant posts. Copy of outsourcing policy dated 06.04.2015 is attached as Annexure R-3. As stated above the petitioners were engaged on term appointment purely on temporary basis and not against the sanctioned post,

2 of 3

therefore, the Government instructions dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure R-2) are not applicable to the petitioners. As such, the petitioners are not entitled tothe benefit of equal pay and equal work policy."

In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

the respondents to disburse the salary of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.11.2017 in

terms of its own administrative instructions dated 03.11.2017, which have

been relied upon as per the stand taken in the written statement. The

respondents are held bound by the same and are directed to pass

administrative orders in terms thereof.

5. Petitioners' arrears be calculated and paid w.e.f. 01.11.2017

along withinterest @ 6% per annum. Needful be done within a period of 3

months form today.

                                                    (ARUN MONGA)
                                                        JUDGE
March 21, 2022
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned:            Yes/No

Whether reportable:                   Yes/No




                                     3 of 3