Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 November, 2022
CWP No.17959 of 2019(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(232+261)
CWP No.17959 of 2019(O&M)
Date of Decision : 15.11.2022
Sandeep and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.27014 of 2019(O&M)
Monika and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.10665 of 2020
Kavita Kumari and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.6379 of 2021
Sangeeta and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.15637 of 2019
Vishwas Sharma and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.12549 of 2020
Harpal and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2022 21:52:24 :::
CWP No.17959 of 2019(O&M) 2
CWP No.15941 of 2021
Poonam Sharma and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.18044 of 2019
Rajesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.37485 of 2019
Asha ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.19208 of 2021
Sunil Kumar and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.17444 of 2021
Sarla Rani and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.17483 of 2021
Kusum and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2022 21:52:25 :::
CWP No.17959 of 2019(O&M) 3
CWP No.23779 of 2021
Jagat Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.20487 of 2021
Ram Niwas and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CWP No.6046 of 2022
Krishan Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No.17959, 27014 and 37485 of
2019 and 6379 of 2021)
Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP No.19208, 23779 and 20487 of
2021 and CWP No.6046 of 2022)
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No.17483 of 2021)
Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No.17444 of 2021)
Mr. Vaidaant Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No.12549 of 2020)
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
***
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2022 21:52:25 :::
CWP No.17959 of 2019(O&M) 4
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
By this common order, the writ petitions, details of which
have been given above, are being disposed of as all the writ petitions
involve the same question of law on similar facts.
For the purpose of this order, the facts are being taken from
CWP No.17959 of 2019 (O&M).
In the bunch of present petitions, the prayer of the petitioners
is that they should be granted the minimum pay scale along with dearness
allowance or in the alternative, the petitioners should be paid the salary on
the DC rates, whichever is higher.
Further prayer of the petitioners is that they are entitiled for
the grant of LTC, which as per the petitioners, keeping in view the
instructions dated 21.04.2010, a copy of which has been appended as
Annexure P-9, even the contractual employees, who are working for more
than four years are entitiled for the one month salary in view of the leave
travel concession.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the factual
situation in the department is such that contractual employees, are being
paid less salary than the employees being paid salary under the DC rates
fixed whereas the petitioners, who are similarly situated and are
performing same duties, their salary has been assessed under the
instructions dated 03.11.2017 on the ground that the petitioners are
working under the outsource policy-II will be entitiled for the payment
under the instructions dated 03.11.2017. Learned counsel submits that the
department needs to streamline the payment of salary to the simiarly
situated employees so that either all the employees, who are working on
4 of 7
contract basis, are to be paid salary under DC rates or all the employees
need to be paid the salary under the instructions dated 03.11.2017,
whichever is higher so as to benefit the said employees concerned.
Learned State counsel submits that though the replies have
not been filed to the present petitions but keeping in view the order passed
by this Court on the same controversy i.e. CWP No.2299 of 2022, titled as
Naveen Akharia and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided
on 07.11.2022, the claim of the petitioners to claim the dearness
allowance along with minimum pay scale has been held to be bad and it
has been held that the employees working under the outsource policy-II
will be entitiled for the payment under the instructions dated 03.11.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not
have any instructions that the similarly situated employees of the same
department are being paid in a different manner one under the DC rates
and another set of employees under the instructions dated 03.11.2017 by
treating him/her as outsourced employees.
Learned State counsel submits that in case such situation is
prevalent in the department, the petitioners can raise the said grievance by
giving an appropriate representation to this effect that similarly situated
employees are getting higher salary under DC rates and appropriate order
on the prayer of the petitioners will be passed by the authorities concerned
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case concerned as to
whether the employees are to be paid under DC rates keeping in view of
their initial appointment or they are paid as outsourced employees under
the instructions dated 03.11.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
5 of 7
claim of the petitioners for the grant of LTC on the ground that they have
been working in the department for the last more than four years will be
considered under the instructions dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-9) and
appropriate orders on the claim of the persons, which will be raised before
the authorities concerned will be passed within eight weeks of receipt of
any such grievance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in
view the abovesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents, the
petitioners are seeking to approach the respondents with a prayer that they
should also be paid their salary under the DC rates as being given to the
other similarly situated employees and not under the instructions dated
03.11.2017 as well as their claim qua LTC having been entitiled under the
instructions dated 21.04.2010.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned counsel appearing for one set of the petitioners
submits that even the salary which is admissible to the petitioners as per
assessment of the department has also not been released so far, which is
causing financial difficulty for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents assured this Court that in
case any such situation exists in the department, the salary for which the
petitioners are entitled for, if not paid upto 30.11.2022, will be released by
first week of December, 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
employees, who are not even being paid either the DC rates or the
minimum of pay scale as envisaged under the instructions dated
03.11.2017 be given liberty to approach the respondents raising their
6 of 7
grievance. This Court is not preventing any employees for any grievance,
which he/she feels is entitiled for. They are well within their jurisdiction
to raise their grievance, if any, before the respondent authoritieis by filing
appropriate representation and it becomes duty of the respondents to
decide the same within the prescribed time.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the file of another
connected cases.
November 15, 2022 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
jt JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? No
7 of 7
