Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 September, 2022
236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: September 06, 2022
1. CWP-13201-2019 (O&M)
Manoj Kumar and others
.....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
2. CWP-12693-2021(O&M)
Prem Chand and others
.....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
3. CWP-12733-2021 (O&M)
Krishan Kumar and others
.....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional AG Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, bunch of above-mentioned three writ
petitions are being disposed of, since not only the facts but the law points and
the issues raised therein are also similar. For brevity, recitals are taken from
CWP No.13201-2019.
2. Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing respondents to grant arrears of minimum of the pay-
1 of 5
scales of the posts manned by the petitioners granted to them by respondents
vide order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-9) w.e.f. the date of passing of
Apex Court judgment rendered in the State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh
and others, reported as 2016 (4) SCT 641.
2. Pleaded case is that petitioners were appointed on their respective
posts by the respondents after following the proper procedure and are
working for the last so many years ranging 15-20 years. Petitioners are
performing similar duties as are being performed by regular counterparts
working in the Department, yet as a matter of fact they are being
discriminated in the matter of pay-scales as they are being paid very less
wages/ salary. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Jagjit Singh's
case (supra) to support his contentions.
3. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
4. Similar controversy as involved herein has already been
adjudicated by me on previous occasion in somewhat similar circumstances. I
need not labour all over again. Reference in this regard may be had to my
judgment/ order dated 21.03.2022 rendered in CWP-20619-2017 titled
Suresh Kumar and another versus State of Haryana and others, in the
following manner:-
"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.
III. You shall be liable to work anywhere in Haryana on
the installations falling within Public Health
Department.
2 of 5
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 Pump Attendants. 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, therefore, the
Government instructions dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure
R-2) are not applicable to the petitioners. As such,
the petitioners are not entitled to the 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
3 of 5
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 with interest @ 6% per annum. Needful be
done within a period of 3 months form today."
5. Apart from aforesaid, my opinion is also re-endorsed by a
Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1598-2019 titled State of Haryana and
another versus Varun Gupta, wherein speaking for this Court, G.S.
Sandhawlia, J. has opined as below, on 15.03.2022:
"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, 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."
6. In the aforesaid premise, I see no reason as to why the petitioners
be not accorded the benefit on parity with ones mentioned in CWP-20619-
2017 as well as appellant in LPA-1598-2019.
7. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the direction to
the competent authority of the respondents to accord the benefit of minimum
of the pay-scales as per instructions dated 03.11.2017 w.e.f. the date said
instructions were issued.
4 of 5
8. Needful be done within a period of 3 weeks from today.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
September 06, 2022
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
