Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar vs Satwant Kaur And Others on 22 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053778-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:053778-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(104) LPA-991-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 22.04.2024
Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Satwant Kaur and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-2535-LPA-2023
Application for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the
appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 72 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-991-2023 (O&M)
1. Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2023 passed in CWP-9827-2015
'Satwant Kaur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others', wherein
innocuous prayer for payment of minimum of pay scale alongwith dearness
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053778-DB
allowance in terms of the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab and
othes Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 has been granted. The
arrears were restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of passing of
the order. Consideration of the case of petitioners for regularization at par
with the counter-parts working in other districts and pass appropriate order
was also directed.
2. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the
Creches are being run by the State Council under the Rajiv Gandhi National
Creche Scheme and same have been handed over by the State Council to
Women and Child Development Department, Haryana alongwith staff on
30.12.2016.
3. In the writ petition, challenge by the five writ petitioners, who
were serving in the District Yamuna Nagar was to the order passed on
23.04.2015 (Annexure P-3), whereby the appellant as such had rejected the
case of regularization and minimum of regular pay scale primarily on the
ground that payment was being made under the scheme in which they were
working and were totally dependent on the funds provided by the Indian
Council for Child Welfare, New Delhi. The other reason given was that if new
scales to are given to creche workers, then the State Council would have no
option to close down the scheme/creches, as there are no such funds with the
State Council to grant minimum pay scales. Objection was also taken in the
written statement that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the State
Council did not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.
4. The learned Single Judge has noticed that law regarding the
maintainability has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053778-DB
CWP No.1286 of 1987 'Shakuntla Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner,
Sirsa and another', and anotherDvision Bench of this Court inLPA No.1124
of 2015 'Janki Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on
22.10.2018 has held that District Council for Child Welfare would fall within
the ambit of 'authority'within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The learned Single Judge also noticed that similarly situated
Balsevikas in other districts had been made regular and had been paid salary
alongwith P.F., D.A and other benefits and resultantly held that it was not fair
to discriminate the writ petitioners, as other counter-parts working in other
districts had been granted the benefits. Accordingly, directions were issued
that the present appellant would consider the case of the writ petitioners for
regularization at par with their counter-parts working in other districts and
pass appropriate orders. The entire exercise was to be carried out within a
period of four months. The writ petition has, thus, been allowed on the basis
of the pleadings which have been admitted as para 5 of the averments made in
the writ petition along with the admission made in the corresponding para of
the written statement.
5. As noticed above, since there was specific averment in paragraph
No.5 of the writ petition that some other Balsevikas had been made regular and
were getting full salary while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in
Shakuntla Devi (supra).On account the averment being admitted, necessary
benefits had been given. We do not see any tangible reason to take a contrary
view as such when similarly situated persons are being granted the benefit of
minimum of the pay scales, as had been directed by the Apex Court in the case
of Jagjit Singh (supra) as the writ petitioners were being paid paltry amounts
of Rs.1200/- to Rs.2000/-. It is not disputed that the State has also issued
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053778-DB
necessary instructions regarding the payment in compliance of the judgment of
the Apex Court. Resultantly, since on the ambit of regularization as such only
directions have been issued to consider the case, it is always open to the
appellant to pass a speaking order, in view of the stand that no creche is being
run by the State Council.
6. Resultantly, we do not find any ground as such to interfere in the
well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge, specially more so it is
based on the admissions as such made by the appellant that similarly situated
persons are being granted the necessary minimum wages. Since, Council has
apparently looked after the welfare of the children and it is in overall
supervision by the District Magistrate, therefore, it is the State which has deep
and pervasive control over the Council and comes under the definition of
'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and an 'authority' within
the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, thus, amenable to
the writ jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and same is
hereby dismissed in limine.
8. All the pending application(s) including CM-2536-LPA-2023 for
additional evidence also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
22.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053778-DB
5 of 5
