Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Kaur And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 March, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041069
CWP-6723-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:041069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(115)
CWP-6723-2024
Date of decision: - 21.03.2024
Lakhwinder Kaur and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. TPS Walia, AAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay the amounts towards Dearness
Allowance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
husbands of both the petitioners, who were working as Mali-cum-
Chowkidar, were initially appointed on daily wage basis and were
subsequently regularized in service and for the period during which they
were daily wagers, they were given other benefits, but were not given
dearness allowance. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.399/2020 in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.25389-2011 titled as "Bahadur Singh and others Vs. Jaspreet
Kaur Talwar and others", vide judgment dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041069
CWP-6723-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:041069
P-1) has clarified the fact that the expression "minimum of the pay",
which is to be paid, would not only mean the basic pay + grade pay, but
would also mean the dearness allowance. It is stated that husbands of both
the petitioners for the period for which they were daily wagers were
entitled to the minimum pay-scales and were also required to be paid
dearness allowance as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is
further submitted that for the said plea, a legal notice dated 29.11.2023
(Annexure P-2) was filed by the petitioners through their counsel, but the
respondent authorities have in the reply dated 24.01.2024 submitted that
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with respect to specific
employees. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is similar to the
case of the said employees before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
ratio of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is applicable to
the husbands of the petitioners and thus, the relief is being sought. It is
further submitted that at this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied in
case the legal notice dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) is considered by
the competent authority of respondent No.1-State on merits after
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above-said judgment, in a time bound manner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has
submitted that competent authority of respondent No.1-State would
consider the said legal notice dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), filed by
the petitioners, in accordance with law, and the same would be done
within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this
order.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041069
CWP-6723-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:041069
4. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present petition is disposed of, with a direction to competent authority of
respondent No.1-State to consider the legal notice dated 29.11.2023
(Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and in case,
competent authority of respondent No.1-State is of the view that the plea
raised by the petitioners is meritorious, then, the appropriate relief be
granted to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible. In case, competent
authority of respondent No.1-State is of the view that the plea raised by
the petitioners is meritless, then, a speaking order rejecting the claim be
passed within the aforesaid period of two months.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits
of the case and competent authority of respondent No.1-State would
consider and decide the matter independently, in accordance with law.
( VIKAS BAHL )
March 21, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
