Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmukh Singh And Ors vs State Of Pb. And Others on 14 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
CWP No.6747 of 1999 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6747 of 1999 (O&M)
Reserved on: 06.11.2024
Date of pronouncement: 14.11.2024
Gurmukh Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Dushyant Rana, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
mandamus, directing the respondents to grant salary at the minimum of
the regular pay scale plus allowances i.e. Rs.950-1800/- with a basic
start of Rs.1,000/- per month, which has been revised to Rs.3120-5160/-
with a basic start of Rs.3220/- per month from 01.01.1996.
2. The brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the
present petition, are that the petitioners were appointed in Nagar
Panchayat, Bhikhiwind, as Clerks/Octroi Clerks in the month of
September/October, 1993, on contract basis and thereafter in the month
of April/May, 1995, they were converted to daily wager. Initially, they
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
were paid salary of Rs.1200/- per month, which was subsequently
increased to Rs.2100/- (approx.) per month. It is the case of the
petitioners that they are discharging the same duties as are being
discharged by the regular Clerks/Octroi Clerks, who have been placed
in the regular pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- with a basic start of Rs.1,000/-
per month, which has further been revised to Rs.3120-5160/- with a
basic start of Rs.3220/- per month plus allowances w.e.f. 01.01.1996
and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the minimum of the
pay scale, along with admissible allowances. The petitioners served
various representations upon respondents, but to no avail. Hence, this
petition.
3. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.2 has been
filed and relevant portion from the same is as under:-
"2. That the contents of para no.2 of the petition are
denied being wrong and incorrect. The petitioners were
appointed as peon/tractor driver/sweeper/clerk (not as
octroi clerk) on contract basis for the period of four
months according to the requirement of the work in the
department of the respondent. The contract of the
petitioners was extended time to time as per the
requirement of the work till year 1999 and petitioners were
being paid the contract price as per their respective
contract and as per the government rules i.e. at the
collector rate which were prevailed/enforced at that time
for labour hired on out-source basis. It is pertinent to
mention that Nagar Panchyat Bhikhiwind was initially a
Notified Area Committee which was de notified by the
government in 1999 and all dues to the petitioners were
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
paid by the department of the respondent till 1999 and
nothing was due. Moreover, department of the respondent
i.e. Nagar Panchayat Bhikhiwind was re-constituted in the
year 2013 and at that time petitioners were not re-
employed in the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat. Rest
of the fact stated in this para are matter of record and the
petitioners are bound to put strict proof thereof."
4. In nutshell, the stand of respondent No.2 - Nagar
Panchayat is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Peon/Tractor
Driver/Sweeper/Clerk (not as Octroi Clerk), on contract basis for a
period of four months and the said contract was extended from time to
time as per requirement of work till the year 1999 and the petitioners
were being paid the contract wages as per their respective contract
according to the Government Rules i.e. at the collector rate prevailed at
that time for the labour hired on outsource basis. It has also been stated
that the Nagar Panchayat, Bhikhiwind was initially a notified area
committee, which was de-notified by the Government in the year 1999
and all the dues were paid to the petitioners by the department till 1999
and nothing was due. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the Nagar Panchayat,
Bhikhiwind, was reconstituted and at that time, the petitioners were not
re-employed in the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are entitled for grant of minimum of the pay scale plus
allowance for the period, they have performed their duties. He has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State
of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others", 2016(4) SCT 641
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
and judgment passed in contempt petition (C) "Bahadur Singh and
others vs Jaspreet Kaur Talwar and others", 2022 INSC 830.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have opposed
the claim of the petitioners by submitting that since the petitioners are
no longer in service after 1999, therefore, they are not entitled for the
minimum of the pay scale and allowances.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court
is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the minimum of the pay
scale along with allowances or not, for the service period rendered by
them.
9. The said issue is not res integra as the same has been
considered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.11 of 2018,
titled as "Sukwinder Pal Singh and others vs Punjab School
Education Board and another", decided on 10.05.2018, wherein after
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit
Singh's case (supra), it has been held as under:-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
vehemently argued that the impugned order dated
28.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge cannot sustain
as it proceeds on a misreading of the judgement in Jagjit
Singh's case (supra). As per learned counsel the relief
granted by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh's case (supra) in
favour of temporary employees was not only minimum of
the pay scale admissible to the regular counterparts but
the directions were for wages to be given at par with
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
minimum of the pay scale of the regular employees and
which in fact would translate to include all allowances as
revised from time to time and made admissible to a regular
employee. It is urged that since the concept of wages
includes all allowances, there was no justification in
having denied to the appellants the arrears for a period of
3 years and 2 months prior to filing of the writ petition by
virtue of the impugned order dated 28.11.2017.
5. Having heard counsel for the appellants at length and
having perused the case paper book, we are of the
considered view that the instant appeal is without merit.
6. The issue with regard to the claim of equal pay for equal
work raised by temporary employees had been considered
by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh's case (supra) and the
dictum had been laid down in paras 57 and 58 of the
judgement and which are reproduced hereunder:-
"57. Having traversed the legal parameters with
reference to the application of the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work', in relation to temporary
employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis,
contractual employees and the like), the sole factor
that requires our determination is, whether the
concerned employees (before this Court), were
rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as
were being discharged by regular employees,
holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise
would require the application of the parameters of
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However,
insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is
concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the
factual position. We say so, because it was fairly
acknowledged by the learned counsel representing
the State of Punjab, that all the temporary
employees in the present bunch of appeals, were
appointed against posts which were also available in
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
the regular cadre/establishment. It was also
accepted, that during the course of their
employment, the concerned temporary employees
were being randomly deputed to discharge duties
and responsibilities, which at some point in time,
were assigned to regular employees. Likewise,
regular employees holding substantive posts, were
also posted to discharge the same work, which was
assigned to temporary employees, from time to time.
There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the
duties and responsibilities discharged by the
temporary employees in the present set of appeals,
were the same as were being discharged by regular
employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that
the respondent-employees did not possess the
qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular
basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State,
that any of the temporary employees would not be
entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles
summarized by us in paragraph 42 herein above.
There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the
concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in
them the right to claim wages, at par with the
minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged
Government employees, holding the same post.
58. In view of the position expressed by us in the
foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in
holding, that all the concerned temporary
employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be
entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the
payscale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-
scale), extended to regular employees, holding the
same post."
7. Clearly the Supreme Court had granted to the temporary
employees relief of minimum of pay scale at the lowest pay
grade and not the total pay extended to a regular
employee. Furthermore, there were no directions issued
with regard to payment of allowances to the temporary
employees at par with regular employees. We find the
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
impugned order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge to be in consonance with the dictum laid
down by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh's case (supra).
10. Further, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment
dated 30.04.2024 passed by this Court in LPA No.733 of 2024 and other
connected cases, titled as "State of Haryana and others vs Kalyan
Singh and others", wherein after considering the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bahadur Singh's case (supra), it has been
held as under:-
"15. The said issue was never the subject matter of
challenge before the learned Single Judge regarding the
issue of allowances. The claim always was regarding the
minimum of the pay scales as held in Jagjit Singh's case
(supra). The reliance as such upon Bahadur Singh's case
(supra), which was a contempt petition, by the learned
Single was, thus, beyond what was pleaded and apparently,
the State was never put to notice that the amount was
payable or liable to be contested beyond the minimum of
the pay scales.
16. The closer reading of the said judgment would go on to
show that an earlier order dated 04.05.2016 had been
passed in the contempt petition wherein the Apex Court
was dealing with the payments which were to be made to
the Home Guards who had been denied the regular
appointments in view of the law laid down in Grah
Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of
H.P. and others, (2015) 6 SCC 247. It is in such
circumstances, a specific benefit as such was given only to
the Home Guards which would not only include Dearness
allowance but also washing allowance. Reliance, thus,
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
upon the same by the learned Single Judge has been made
while defining the basic pay which include basic pay,
grade pay and dearness allowance and, therefore, fall back
on the judgment in Bahadur Singh's case (supra) as such
was not called for. The closer reading of the said order
would go on to show that it was in pursuance of the earlier
order dated 04.05.2016. The said observations had been
made on 16.08.2022 while disposing of the contempt
petition and could not be read over and above the principle
laid down in Jagjit Singh's case (supra), relevant portion
of which reads thus:-
"55. In view of all our above conclusions, the
decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High
Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [Avtar Singh
v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15326 :
ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , dated 11-11- 2011, is
liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby set
aside. The decision rendered by the Division Bench
of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Rajinder
Singh [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh, 2009 SCC
OnLine P&H 125] is also liable to be set aside, and
the same is also hereby set aside. We affirm the
decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Rajinder
Kumar [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar, 2010
SCC OnLine P&H 13009], with the modification
that the employees concerned would be entitled to
the minimum of the pay scale, of the category to
which they belong, but would not be entitled to
allowances attached to the posts held by them."
17. A perusal of the same would go on to show that it was
minimum of the pay scale of the category to which they
belong but there is a denial to the allowances attached to
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
the posts.
18. We have time and again and in an earlier round of
litigation also, allowed the appeal of the State i.e. LPA-
132-2021, State of Haryana and others vs. Sandeep and
others wherein, the learned Single Judge granted 38
months' arrears in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court and resultantly directed that the payment would only
be made from 01.11.2017 in view of the instructions. We
are informed that the matter was taken to the Apex Court
in SLP (C) No.16093 of 2002 and the same has been
further upheld. Reliance upon an order passed by the co-
ordinate Bench in LPA-292-2023, Haryana State Legal
Services Authority and others vs. Karam Pal and others
whereby, the co-ordiante Bench as such had granted the
benefit on 14.12.2023 is without any basis since RA-LP-5-
2024 in LPA-292-2023 filed in the said case was allowed
by us on 15.03.2024 and the order stands recalled. The
said order reads thus:-
"2. By way of present application, the applicants-
appellants sought review of the judgment/order
dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that
the said order suffers from an error apparent on
record since apparently the contractual employees
have been held to be entitled the dearness allowance
in terms of the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the
Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.
399- 2020, 400-2020 and 401 of 2020.
3. It has been pointed out that a specific plea was
taken before the learned Single Judge that as per
Rule 8(3) 'dearness allowance' has been termed as
compensatory allowance granted to the Government
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
employee in the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances
to Government Employees) Rules, 2016 and as per
Rule 8(36) the 'government employee' does not
include an employee appointed on contract basis in
Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016.
4. It is accordingly pointed out that even the Apex
Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh
and others 2017(1) SCC 148, has held that the
employees would be entitled to the minimum of the
pay scale of the category to which they belong but
would not be entitled to allowance attached to the
posts held by them.
5. Mr. Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the
non-applicants-respondents has opposed the prayer
for review of the order on the ground that the Apex
Court has already considered the same in the
contempt order (supra).
6. We are of the considered opinion that keeping in
view the fact that the Rule in question thus was not
brought to the notice of the Apex Court as well as of
the Coordinate Bench. Accordingly, a case for
review of the order in question is made out. The
application for review of the order dated 14.12.2023
passed by this Court is allowed and the said order is
recalled.
7. The appeal is restored to its original number and
be set down for hearing on-merits as per roster."
19. In such circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
needs to be modified to that extent that the payment of the
minimum of the pay scale, as ordered by the Apex Court in
Jagjit Singh's case (supra), will be payable w.e.f.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145513
01.11.2017 as per instructions of the State itself minus
allowances. Resultantly, the break up as such and the
benefits which had been granted in Para No.8 to that
extent are modified, while partially allowing the appeals of
the State. It is made clear that the date of payment as such
and the entitlement would be 01.11.2017 in view of the
express instructions of the State."
11. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, the
present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 - Nagar Panchayat
(Bhikhiwind) is directed to grant minimum of the pay scale of the
post(s) held by the petitioners from the date of their joining i.e.
April/May, 1995 till the date they were in service, but without any
allowances, and necessary arrears shall be calculated and paid to the
petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
14.11.2024 JUDGE
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
