Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064254
CWP-1038-2021 2024:PHHC:064254
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
226
CWP-1038-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Gurmeet Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. HC Arora, Advocate and
Ms. Sunaina, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the
circular letters dated 31.03.2016, 07.06.2018, 08.05.2019, 16.11.2020
(Annexures P3, P4, P5 & P7).
2. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are working
as Pharmacists on contract basis in various Subsidiary Health Centres being
run by Zila Parishads, which are under the Department of Rural
Development and Panchayats, Govt. of Punjab, however, they have been
paid a meager amount of Rs.7,000/- to 11,000/- while their claim is for being
paid at the DC rates, as applicable to posts occupied by them. The issue
stands already decided in Ram Jaspal and others vs. State of Punjab and
others, CWP-26265-2017, decided on 25.07.2019, wherein the State was
directed to pay the salary to the petitioners at the DC rates, who were
working as Safai Karamcharis in the Animal Husbandry Department and
their salary was earlier restricted to Rs.4000/- per month, relevant paras read
thus:-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064254
CWP-1038-2021 2024:PHHC:064254
"It is instructive to note that this decision referred to a "bare
minimum wage" or a "subsistence wage". As later decisions
(to which reference would be made hereinafter) went on to
clarify, a distinction came to be drawn, in time, between a
"bare minimum" wage and a "minimum" wage.
It is further submitted that despite such strongly worded
judgments, the respondents are still paying to the petitioners at
the rate which is less than the minimum wages."
On the other hand learned State counsel submits that as
per the service contract (Annexure P-2) signed between
petitioner No.1 and Zila Parishad, the petitioners are bound to
accept the conditions of the contract. As per the condition of
the agreement, class IV (Attendant-cum-Sweeper) shall be paid
`3000/- per calendar month and in case of dispute, the matter
shall be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by Director, Rural
Development and Panchayat(s), Punjab whose decision shall
be final and shall not be challengeable in any Court of law. In
Clause 13 of the said contract, it is mentioned that the Class IV
employees undertake that the present assignment is purely a
stop gap arrangement and no one will claim any continuation
or other service benefits.
Heard.
The Court feels that minimum wages are the primary and
basic entitlement of a workman/employee and denial of the
same is no less than promoting slavery and bonded labour.
In view of the above, this Court is, therefore, constrained
to observe that any reluctance on the part of an employer to
award minimum wages to a workman for the period during
which he had admittedly worked, is not only illegal and
immoral but also invites criminal liability. Such an attitude
erodes the very foundation of a socialist society which the
preamble of our Constitution professes to be, and belies the
promises held out to every citizen by the Constitution of India.
The present petition is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, the State is directed to pay the salary to the
petitioners as per the Deputy Commissioner rates and
difference between the deputy Commissioner rates at the
various stages of time be calculated and the payment from the
date of appointment of the petitioners be made within three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
judgment."
3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts, has been unable
to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064254
CWP-1038-2021 2024:PHHC:064254
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed in Ram Jaspal (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.05.2024
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
