Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neetu Bhatia And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 October, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137562
CWP-28275-2024 -1-
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-28275-2018
Date of Decision: 21.10.2024
Neetu Bhatia and another ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant the petitioners, pay-scale of Rs.9300-
34800+3200 GP, w.e.f. the date of their joining i.e. 2011, as is being granted
to other counterparts of the petitioners in pursuance of the orders passed by
this Court in CWP-25030-2013 titled as "Sushma and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others" as per the principles of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013
titled as "State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh & others" and also by
this Court in a number of cases and pursuant thereto, to release the arrears of
revised salary w.e.f. their date of joining in 2011 along with interest @18%
per annum.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137562
case where the petitioners are working as Librarians in the respondent-
Department and were selected on the basis of advertisement and proper
procedure was followed. He further submitted that the petitioners are
seeking parity with the employees, who had joined on the basis of same
advertisement and also for the same post on the basis of 'equal pay for equal
work' and their prayer is squarely covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court passed in CWP-25030-2013 titled as "Sushma and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on 10.10.2022 vide
Annexure P-5. He also submitted that a legal notice dated 06.05.2024
(Annexure P-7) was issued by the petitioners, but till date no action has been
taken by the respondents in this regard. He submitted that at this stage, the
petitioners will be satisfied in case their legal notice (Annexure P-7) is
directed to be decided by passing a speaking order in accordance with law
and also in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in a time bound manner.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional
Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents and states that she has no objection, in case, a
direction is issued to the respondents for considering and deciding the legal
notice issued by the petitioners vide Annexure P-7 in accordance with law
and within a fixed time framework.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, without calling for the reply
from the respondents and without observing anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137562
No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the legal notice dated
06.05.2024 issued by the petitioners vide Annexure P-7 strictly in
accordance with law by passing a well-reasoned speaking order in the light
of the aforesaid judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sushma
and others case (supra) within a period of three months from today.
21.10.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
