Vishnu Bhandari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 11159 P&H

                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097413




CWP-25781-2015                                                                          -1-

204                                                         2023:PHHC:097413

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-25781-2015
                                        DECIDED ON: 28.07.2023

VISHNU BHANDARI AND ORS.
                                                            .....PETITIONERS

                                      VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA DN ORS.
                                                            .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Ms. Ruby Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 8.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for release of

wages as was applicable at the time he joined the services, in the year 1997. The

petitioners have in fact joined the services as part time worker from 18.11.1997 as

has been narrated in para 6 of the writ petition, which reads as under:-

"That the petitioners belong to poor strata, with hard work are taking care of their families. That list from year 1997 alongwith the rate of making the payment of DC rates, working hours, daily payment and total amount paid is being reproduced for the kind consideration of this Court:-

Year Payment of Working Hours Daily Total DC Rate Payment Amount 18/11/1997 9 rupees Six hours 54 rupees 1404 hour 1998 10 rupees Six hours 60 rupees 1560 hour

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097413

1999 11 rupees Six hours 66 rupees 1716 hour 2000 12 rupees Six hours 72 rupees 1872 hour 2001 13 rupees Six hours 78 rupees 2028 hour 2002 14 rupees Six hours 84 rupees 2184 hour 2003 15 rupees Six hours 90 rupees 2340 hour 2004 16 rupees Six hours 96 rupees 2496 hour 2005 17 rupees Six hours 102 rupees 2652 hour 2006 22 rupees Six hours 110 rupees 2860 hour 2007/9.10.07 27 rupees Six hours 162 rupees 4212 hour 10.11.07 27 rupees Four hours 135 rupees 3510 hour 2008 37 rupees Four hours 151 rupees 3930 75 paise hour 2009 40 rupees Four hours 160 rupees 4160 hour 2010 46 rupees Four hours 185 rupees 4800 25 paise hour 2011 51 rupees Four hours 204 rupees 5280 25 paise hour 2012 58 rupees Four hours 235 rupees 6110 75 paise hour 2013 67 rupees Four hours 268 rupees 6970 75 paise hour 2014 78 rupees Four hours 312 rupees 8112 75 paise hour

18/11/97 to Six hours 9/10/97 11/10/07 to Four hours now

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097413

The petitioners are now aggrieved on account of the fact that vide

subsequent instructions dated 13.05.2008, the rates of wages on DC rates were

revised and were ordered to be paid 1/4th part of per hour and the same was

continued vide another letter dated 29.06.2009. It is also an admitted fact that

another letter was issued in the year 2011, pertaining to the DC rates, which is for

the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. The same situation continued for the

period during 2012-13. Such copies of letters are on record as Annexurs P-1 & P-2

respectively.

It is also the assertion on behalf of the petitioners that arrears since

25.11.2014 have not been paid to the petitioners and without any notice or any

opportunity of hearing, their wages have been reduced and the petitioners were also

dis-continued from work since two years.

Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 8 has drawn attention of

this Court to the para 9 of the written statement, which reads as under:-

"That the contents of para No.9 of the writ petition are wrong and hence denied. However, it is stated that the petitioners are being paid the wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District and the arrear for the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.04.2017 has been paid to the petitioners and no any amount is due."

Be that as it may from the totality of facts, if examined, it is evident

that the petitioners were engaged as part-time workers on 89-days basis with one

day break as per D.C. Rates, admittedly, in the year 1997, but subsequently DC

rates were reduced with the instructions that the working hours have been reduced

from 6 to 4 as per the requirement of work w.e.f. March, 2008. Accordingly, the

wages were reduced by 1/4th.

Since the nature of work performed by the petitioners is contractual in

nature with a stipulation of 89 days and thereafter a fresh contract is entered into

and it is a settled proposition of law by various judgments rendered by Supreme

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097413

Court as well as by this Court that each and every terms and condition of the

contract can be changed and entered. Thus, in the light of settled law, the petitioners

have no legal right to claim the wages as per their initial date of joining as part time

workers in the year 1997.

Otherwise also it has come to the notice on perusal of the written

statement vide para 9, as is reproduced hereinabove, that the wages fixed by the

D.C., have been paid alongwith arrears for the period 01.04.2015 to 30.04.2017 and

no amount is due. Beyond that, learned counsel for the petitioners could not raise or

assert any other issue to claim on the basis of their legal right to claim wages as was

given in the year 1997 i.e., at the time of initial joining.

In the light of the above discussions made hereinabove, petition stands

dismissed.

                                                  (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
28.07.2023                                              JUDGE
Meenu



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

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097413

4 of 4