Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Balwinder Singh And Another on 24 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:055481-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(109) LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 24.04.2024
State of Haryana & others ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Balwinder Singh & another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellant (s).
Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate, for the respondents.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1785-LPA-2024
1. Allowed as prayed for.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM-1784-LPA-2024
3. Application for condonation of delay of 50 days in refiling the
present appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the
application, duly supported by affidavit of the official, same is allowed.
Delay of 50 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. CM stands disposed of.
CM-1786-LPA-2024
5. Application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the
present appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the
application, duly supported by affidavit of the official, same is allowed.
Delay of 52 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
6. CM stands disposed of.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
LPA-724-2024
7. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
21.07.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-15114-2021
wherein the writ petition was allowed and Clause no.11 of the policy dated
04.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) was declared illegal which fixed the
remuneration to the retired Teachers who had been appointed as eligible
Extension Lecturers in Government Colleges at Rs.35,400/- per month.
Resultantly, directions were issued that remuneration should be paid at
Rs.57,700/- per month to the writ petitioners from the date of their
appointment as Extension Lecturers and release the arrears of difference of
remuneration to them within a period of six weeks.
8. State Counsel has vehemently argued that the writ petitioners
constituted a separate category being retired Lecturers and therefore, could
not claim the same amount of remuneration as was being paid to the other
eligible Extension Lecturers since they were already drawing pension from
the State and therefore, could not be benefitted twice.
9. The said argument was duly considered by the Learned Single
Judge and rightly been rejected by keeping in mind the fact that the writ
petitioners were performing the same duties as being performed by the
eligible Extension Lecturers who had got retired. The pension which was
being drawn by them was for the service rendered by them in the
Department for a period of 21 years. The amount which they were entitled
was for the work being done by them pursuant to the engagement and the
two were not inter-connected. The drawing of pension could not have a
bearing on the remuneration to be paid for the work being done as
Extension Lecturers since the engagement was based purely upon their
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
eligibility in terms of the policy and the instructions issued. The distinction
to be drawn by categorizing them as separate class was misplaced and
irrational and had no nexus with the object of employing Extension
Lecturers to meet the teaching workload. The payment of lesser
remuneration to the retired teachers/writ petitioners amounted to practicing
discrimination against them and treating equals as unequals and the State
cannot shirk from its duty to pay all eligible Extension Lecturers who form
one class equally for the same work done by them in compliance of the
Constitutional mandate of equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petitioners had filed the writ petition stating
that they were being discriminated by payment of lesser remuneration of
Rs.35,400/- per month w.e.f. January, 2021 instead of Rs.57,700/- per
month on account of status of employee which was not permissible. It is
their pleaded case that same was on account of the policy guidelines dated
04.03.2020 (Annexure P-2) and they had been appointed as Extension
Lecturers in Punjabi Subject.
10. Apparently, they filed an application for increase of their
remuneration keeping in view the fact that their qualification was
MA/Ph.D and claimed the necessary additional amount on the ground that
they were retired Teachers and qualified and could not be compared with
the ineligible Extension Lecturers. It was specifically pleaded that all
additional duties and responsibilities were given to the retired Teachers
who were engaged as Extension Lecturers and that other Extension
Lecturers were not retired and there is no reason for the said
discrimination. They placed reliance upon State of Punjab & others Vs.
Jagjit Singh & others, 2017 (1) SCC 148 qua 'equal work, equal pay'.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
11. The stand of the Principal, Government College who had filed
the written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is that the
instructions dated 06.07.2019 would have no relevance after the issuance
of the policy guidelines dated 04.03.2020 which was in supersession of all
the instructions whereby on an earlier occasion, all eligible Extension
Lecturers were to be given Rs.57,700/- per month provided that there was
adequate workload and they were to continue provided there was workload
for the one academic session.
12. A perusal of the instructions dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure
P-2) would go on to show that the remuneration was fixed under Clauses 8
to 11 and it had been mentioned that the eligible Extension Lecturers were
to be paid Rs.57,700/- per month w.e.f. 27.06.2019 on the principle of
'equal work, equal pay' and no allowances were to be paid. They were to
perform all additional duties at par with the regular Assistant/Associate
Professors but the duties involving financial responsibilities were not to be
allotted to them. The ineligible ones were to be paid Rs.35,400/- per month
including those who had got interim protection by this court till the final
outcome of the litigation. Thus, specific categorization has been made
regarding the ineligible and the eligible to put the ineligible at a lesser
platform at Rs.35,400/- per month. The classification in that case is thus
based on that ground. The writ petitioners are the eligible ones who had
earlier served the State and having retired, got the benefit of appointment
but keeping in view the provisions that they were to be paid remuneration
at Rs.35,400/- per month. Relevant clauses read as under:
"B. Remuneration
8. The eligible extension lecturers shall be paid @ Rs. 577001- per
month w.e.f. 27-6-19 (on the principle of equal work equal pay)
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
and no allowances are to be paid. They shall be given teaching
workload as per State Govt. norms. Fufther, they shall also peform
all additional duties (at par with regular Assistant/Associate
Professor). However, duties involving financial responsibilities
shall not be allotted to them.
9. However, all those incumbents who are not eligible as per
UGC/State Government norms but are still working as being
protected by the orders of Hon'ble High Court, will be paid a
remuneration of Rs 35,400/- per month and will be meeting
complete workload and all other duties as well till the final
outcome in Civil Writ Petitions.
10. Wherever, an Extension Lecturer is engaged and still working
as being protected by the orders of Hon'ble High Court and there is
less workload as per stipulated norms they will be paid
Rs 35,400/- per month.
11. The remuneration to be paid to such retired teachers will be Rs.
35,400/- p.m."
13. It is thus apparent that the State is openly discriminating
against similarly situated set of persons who were performing the same
type of work. The argument raised by the State Counsel that they were
receiving pension has been rightly rejected by the Learned Single Judge.
The pension which was being received was not on account of the service
rendered at present but was on account of the earlier long service and
cannot be considered a 'Bounty' in any manner. The Apex Court in Jagjit
Singh (supra) has already elaborated on the issue of 'equal pay for equal
work' and granted even the temporary employees right to claim wages at
par with the minimum of the pay scales of Government employees holding
the same duties.
14. In State of Punjab & others Vs. Devinder Singh & others,
1998 (8) SCC 595, the writ petitioners were Ledger Keepers/Ledger
Clerks and claimed salaries and allowances as being paid to the regular
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
employees and doing the same work as has been taken from the regular
employees and this Court accepted the said prayer on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' and the Apex Court modified it to the extent
that the petitioners were entitled for minimum of the pay scales of Ledger
Keepers. The Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) had fallen back upon
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 1966 that there has to be fair wages and equal remuneration for
work of equal value without distinction of any kind. Thus, keeping in
view the fact that temporary employees were discharging the
responsibilities as by regular employees, the Apex Court had gone on to
give benefit to all of them while granting minimum of the pay-scales of the
regularly engaged Government employees.
15. In such circumstances, in the absence of any specific reply or
stand taken by the State that the writ petitioners were doing work lesser
than the similarly situated extension Lecturers, we do not see any tangible
reason why different view is to be taken which the Learned Single Judge
had taken by applying the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India. The Apex Court has time and again held that the
power of judicial review in the matters of financial implications may be
limited but in a case of gross arbitrariness or infirmities, by which the
parties have been aggrieved, the Writ Court would step in to redress the
grievances to the rights which are provided under the Constitution of India.
It is not the case where the matter is complex or it has to be examined by
the expert body or there is any gross error while deciding the issue by the
Learned Single Judge. The services of all Extension Lecturers were
engaged as per the policy dated 04.03.2020 and only candidates who are
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055481-DB
LPA-724-2024 (O&M)
the retired Teacher, have been put in the lower slab while equating them
wrongly with the ineligible candidates who were continuing work on
account of the fact that they had interim orders.
16. It is not disputed that all ineligible Extension Lecturers would
necessarily have to give way in view of Clause 2 of the policy which
provides that the ineligibles had to be weeded out. The said policy has
been upheld by the Division Bench in Suman Devi Vs. State of Haryana
& others, 2020 (4) SCT 523. The Division Bench in the said case was
testing the validity of the policy which was subject matter of challenge but
the issue of discrimination had been raised for the first time in the present
litigation.
17. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion, we do not
feel any valid reason why the order of the Learned Single Judge would
require interference by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending application(s)
also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
7 of 7
