Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kannan And Ors vs Ut Administration And Ors on 25 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155242
CWP-12075-2022 -1-
and other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
274 (1) CWP-12075-2022
Date of decision: 25.11.2024
KANNAN AND OTHERS ....PETITIONERS
Vs.
U.T. ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
Sr. Case Nos. Name of parties
No
2. CWP-12254- RAJEEV AND ORS V/S U.T. ADMINISTRATION
2022 AND OTHERS
3. CWP-13289- RAVI AND ORS V/S U.T. ADMINISTRATION AND
2022 OTHERS
4. CWP-13320- SHAKTIVEL AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
5. CWP-13402- D. RAJA AND OTHERS V/S U.T. ADMINISTRATION
2022 AND OTHERS
6. CWP-13416- VELUMURGAN AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
7. CWP-13422- PARDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
8. CWP-13438- MOHAN LAL AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
9. CWP-13457- SWARANA DEVI AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
10. CWP-13649- KANNAN AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
11. CWP-13667- RAJNI AND OTHERS V/S U.T/ ADMINISTRATION
2022 AND OTHERS
12. CWP-13692- VIKRAM AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
13. CWP-13408- RAJIV GANDHI AND OTHERS V/S U.T.
2022 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 27-11-2024 03:20:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155242
CWP-12075-2022 -2-
and other connected cases
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for
Mr. Kanwar Yuvraj Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Advocate
for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh (in CWP-13422-2022)
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh (in CWP-12254-2022)
Mr. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and
Ms. Shubhreet Kaur, Advocate
for U.T., Chandigarh (in CWP-13438-2022).
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CWP-13408-2022)
Mr. M.K. Dogra, Additional Sanding Counsel
for U.T., Chandigarh-respondent Nos. 1 and 2
(in CWP-13692-2022).
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and
Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CWPs-13649 and 13416-2022).
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with
Dr. Malvika Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Abhishek K. Premi, Advocate
for respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation Chandigarh
(in all cases).
Mr. Jaiveer Chandail, Advocate and
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate
for the respondent-U.T., Administration
(in CWPs-13402 and 13289-2022).
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Junior Panel Counsel
for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. By this common order, the above-said petitions are disposed of as
issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake
of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from
CWP-12075-2022.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155242
and other connected cases
2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to grant Basic Pay
plus Dearness Allowance in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'U.T. Chandigarh and another Vs. Sampat and others' in Civil Appeal No(s).
6779 of 2009.
3. The petitioners are working with respondent-Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh as 'Sweepers'. They were initially appointed by
Department of Rural Development & Panchayats, U.T. Chandigarh for erstwhile
Gram Panchayat of Village Kishangarh, Chandigarh.
4. The petitioners vide order dated 30.04.2019 passed by
Administrator of Chandigarh Administration came to be transferred to
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The petitioners are at present paid at DC
rate whereas they are claiming Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance in view of
judgment of Supreme Court in Sampat and others (Supra).
5. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate submits that as per letter dated
30.04.2019 of the Administrator, the petitioners are entitled to DC rate, however,
Municipal Corporation has reconsidered the matter and in the light of judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampat and others (Supra), the matter has been
put up before the Competent Authority to look into the grievance of the
petitioners. In support of his submissions, he produced office note, which is
taken on record as Annexure A-1. Registry is directed to tag the same at an
appropriate place.
6. The relevant extracts of office noting dated 01.11.2024 of Joint
Commissioner Municipal Corporation read as:-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155242
and other connected cases
"6.0 All files and relevant documents in the Rural Dev Department
have been examined thoroughly, but it could not be ascertained why
this disparity arisen when the status of all employees of Gram
Panchayat were similar before their transfer to MCC. The
Safaikaramcharis Unions has been raising this issue at regular
intervals and requesting that these 158 employees who were
transferred to MCC in the year 2018, should also be given Basic
Pay + DA as had been granted to their counterparts who have
jointed MCC earlier. On the demand of the Union, the issue has
been raised with the O/o SLG time and again, but no final order in
this regard has been received so far.
7.0 Now the Safaikaramcharis Union has again requested that
this case may sent to the Government with the recommendation of
sympathetic consideration.
8.0 As stated earlier, there is nothing found in the record or there
is any policy as of now under which these employees could be
considered for granting the benefit of Basic Pay + DA. Also, nо
amendments or rectification has ever been sought or suggested in
the orders of the Hon'ble Administrator.
9.0 However, as requested by the Union, if considered
appropriate, the case may be forwarded to the Secretary Local
Government for taking a decision in this regard or reconsideration
of orders of 30.04.2019 of Hon'ble Administrator, so that the parity
could be maintained."
7. The office noting dated 18.11.2024 of Joint Commissioner reads
as:-
"The matter was discussed with W/CMC in the presence of
Law Officer.
2.0 It has been observed that in order to remove the disparity as
exists in the present case as mentioned in detailed note of
undersigned at NP/8-9, the matter should be referred to the Hon'ble
Administrator for reconsideration in view of the specific order
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155242
and other connected cases
dated 30.04.2019 passed by Hon'ble Administrator whereby the
present employees were directed to be transferred on the same
terms and conditions as existed in the gram panchayat. Further, in
order to maintain the administration comity and in order to avoid
conflict of authority and to secure certainty, uniformity and
decorum in the hierarchy of administrative structure, it is proposed
that matter may be referred to the Hon'ble Administrator for
reconsideration through the Secretary Local Government so that
disparity or anomaly may be removed. The prompt action is
required in the present matter as CWP 12075 of 2022 is already
pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court."
8. From the noting, it further appears that Competent Authority has
directed to submit a fresh proposal for consideration by the Secretary, Local
Government.
9. Faced with this, Mr. Anil Kumar Chauhan, Advocate submits that
petitions may be disposed of with liberty to file afresh, if the cause arises, at a
later stage.
10. In the wake of statement of both sides, the petitions stand disposed
of.
11. This Court is sanguine of the fact that Competent Authority,
ignoring para 3 of letter dated 30.04.2019, would consider the claim of the
petitioners in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampat and
others (Supra).
25.11.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
