Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwar Singh And Ors vs Dakshin Hry Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd And ... on 23 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055202
2024:PHHC:055202
CWP-11601-2018 (O&M) -1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-11601-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.04.2024
Kanwar Singh and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for
directing the respondents to grant salary equal to ALM/SA appointed by
Nigam or as per Annexure P-3 dated 11.09.2017, Annexure P-4 dated
29.09.2017 and Annexure P-5 dated 19.12.2017, as per Government
Instructions and Nigam decision prevalent in this respect, on the basis of
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in view of a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and
others" 2017(1) SCC 148 along with arrears and with all consequential
benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it is a case
where the petitioners are working as ALM/SA in the respondent-Nigam on
contractual basis and were selected on the basis of advertisement and proper
procedure was followed. He further submitted that the petitioners are seeking
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055202
2024:PHHC:055202
CWP-11601-2018 (O&M) -2-
parity with the regular employees on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'
and their prayer is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others case
(supra). He also submitted that a legal notice dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure P-
6) was issued by the petitioners, but no action has been taken by the
respondents in this regard.
3. Mr. Divyanshu Shukla, Advocate has caused appearance on
behalf of Mr. Hitesh Pandit, learned counsel for the respondents and stated
that he has no objection in case a direction is issued for considering and
deciding the legal notice issued by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6 in
accordance with law and within a time framework.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present
petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the
prayer of the petitioners for grant of equal pay for equal work in the light of
the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and
others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others case (supra) and thereafter, to pass a well
reasoned speaking order within a period of three months from today.
5. In case, the petitioners are found to be entitled for the benefit as
prayed by them, then the same shall be released to them within next three
months.
6. Needless to say that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by any
order passed by respondent No.1, then they shall be at liberty to assail the
same in accordance with law.
23.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
