Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Sudesh Malik on 4 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120763-DB
LPA-2132-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
119 LPA-2132-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.09.2024
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Appellants
VERSUS
SUDESH MALIK
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. AG, Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. Sukhdev Raj Kamboj, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(ORAL)
1. The respondent was initially appointed as a Gram Savika. Such
appointment was after following due procedure and on regular basis. In the
year 2003, she was adjusted by the State as a Supervisor under the
Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (for short - ICDS). This
adjustment was after receipt of concurrence from the Haryana Staff
Selection Board. Thereafter, the respondent served as a Supervisor but as
per the terms of her adjustment, she was paid emoluments which are
applicable to the post of Gram Savika. Through CWP-34246-2019, the
respondent petitioned this Court seeking therein the emoluments being paid
to Supervisors which petition of hers was disposed of on 02.12.2019 with a
direction to the State to consider her claim. As per the direction given by
this Court, the State passed an order dated 24.07.2020 rejecting the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120763-DB
LPA-2132-2024 (O&M) -2-
respondent's claim on the ground that at the time of her adjustment as
Supervisor there was a specific condition in her adjustment order that even
after her adjustment as a Supervisor she would be paid emoluments payable
to Gram Savikas. Order dated 24.07.2020 was then challenged by the
respondent through CWP-18041-2020 which has been allowed on
01.04.2024 by the learned Single Judge. Such judgment of the learned
Single Judge is the subject matter of challenge through the instant intra
court appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. It remains undisputed that since the year 2003, the respondent
has served as a Supervisor in the department of Women and Child
Development, Haryana; her work and conduct has throughout been
satisfactory; the post against which she was adjusted in the year 2003 is
interchangeable with other Supervisors and that since the year 2013, the
respondent also fulfills the qualifications prescribed for the post of
Supervisor. These being the admitted facts, the State's action to deny the
respondent emoluments which other identically placed Supervisors are
being paid, would be arbitrary and unfair. It would also be violative of the
principle of equal pay for equal work.
4. In the light of the above facts, we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned judgment insofar as it holds the respondent entitled to be
paid the salary being paid to her Supervisor colleagues. However, we find
that the cause of action to claim salary applicable to the post of Supervisor
accrued to the respondent in the year 2003 and that for the first time she
agitated her claim only in the year 2019. Therefore, we modify the
impugned judgment and direct that the grant of arrears to her be restricted to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:120763-DB
LPA-2132-2024 (O&M) -3-
38 months prior to the filing of her writ petition in the year 2019 with a
further direction that on these arrears no interest shall be payable.
5. The present appeal is disposed of in above terms.
6. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed
of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
September 04, 2024
Nisha Yadav
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
