Sandeep Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 17976 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 26 September, 2024

CWP-11489-2013
          2013 and connected cases
                               Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127985
                                                                                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

204                                        Date of decision: 26.09.2024

           2013 (O&M)
CWP-11489-2013
Sandeep Kumar
         umar and anr. vs. State of Haryana
                                     aryana and ors.

CWP-11497-2013
          2013 (O&M)
Naveen Kumar
        umar and ors. vs. State of Haryana
                                    aryana and ors.

CWP-11578-20132013 (O&M)
Jaibir Singh vs. State of Haryana and ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:       Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate for
               Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the petitioner
                                                   petitioners.

       Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana
                                    Haryana.
       ***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together.

2. Prayer made in the present petitions is for direction to grant minimum of regular pay scale for the post of Conductor held by the petitionerss on contract basis.

3. Learned State counsel had, as recorded in the order dated 23.09.2013 relied upon the operation of the judgment in CWP-22516-2012 having been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, Court as such the these cases were adjourned sine die to await the decision in SLP Nos.25552 Nos.25552-25556 of 2013 titled as State of others, which were decided on Haryana and another vs. Mohinder Singh and others 31.01.2017, relevant paras whereof read thus:--

""6.

6. In conjunction to the factual position, noticed hereinabove, it is also necessary to appreciate, that the State of Haryana, at its own, accepted and implemented the judgment rendered by the High Court, even with reference to such conductors and drivers, who had not approached the High Court, for any relief. The above judgment has been implemented, so as to allow the regular pay scale to all conductors and drivers, with effect from the date of their appointment, with the overriding condition that arrears would be payable with effect from 1.1.2014. In the instant view of the matter, it is apparent, that there is no serious dispute with reference to the

1 of 4

CWP-11489-2013 and connected cases Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127985

challenge made at the hands of the State Government, on the merits of the determination rendered by the High Court. We therefore hereby affirm the judgment rendered by the High Court, insofar as the merits of the controversy is concerned.

7. Even otherwise, we are satisfied, that a challenge to the determination rendered by the High Court, with reference to the wages payable to the concerned employees, under the principle of equal pay for equal work, as has been expressed by the High Court, is in consonance with the legal position on the subject, declared by this Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, and calls for no interference.

8. What remains for adjudication, is the direction contained in the impugned judgment, that arrears would be payable to the appellants, who approached the High Court, for a period of three years and two months, prior to the date of their filing petitions before the High Court. It is this aspect of the matter, which is seriously contested by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was the submission of the learned counsel, that the appellants, while disbursing wages to the respondents, had paid them wages, as were due to them, in consonance with the statutory rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was therefore submitted, that the appellants cannot be accused of having been unfair to the respondents. It was also submitted, that the State of Haryana, despite the extreme financial burden, had unilaterally adopted the judgment, and had agreed to pay arrears of wages, with effect from 1.1.2014. It was submitted that, wages had indeed been released to all conductors and drivers, in consonance with the impugned judgment, even to those who had not approached the High Court. It was however acknowledged, that arrears had been paid only, with effect from 1.1.2014. It was further submitted, that wages have also been released to 65 of the appellants, who had approached the High Court, in consonance with the impugned judgment, with effect from 1.1.2014, as they agreed to execute a settlement with the appellants, by conceding to accept arrears only with effect from 1.1.2014. It was therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Haryana, that it would be not only just and appropriate, but would also be fair, to extend arrears to all the respondents, only for the period commencing from 1.1.2014. It was also submitted, that payment of arrears for any further time, would cause extreme financial hardship, to the State. It was also contended, that it would be almost impossible to pay wages to the respondents, for a period of three years and two months, prior to the date of their filing petitions, before the High Court.

9. As against the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants, it was the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the course adopted by the High Court, was in consonance with the declared position of law, inasmuch as, the High Court had taken into consideration, the period of limitation, over which a monetary claim could be accepted. It was also the assertion of the learned counsel representing the conductors and drivers, that the State Government became alive of the claim raised by the respondents, on the very date the respondents approached the High Court. It was submitted,

2 of 4

CWP-11489-2013 and connected cases Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127985

that a fair government, would have accepted the employees' just demand, and would have released their wages, as were rightfully due to them, at its own. The fact, that the appellants were conscious of the genuineness of the claims of the conductors and drivers, it was pointed out, was apparent from the fact, that the appellants have not challenged the impugned order on merits, and that, the benefit of the judgment has been extended to even those employees who had not approached the High Court, unilaterally by the State Government. It was submitted, that the action of the State Government in contesting the claim, which was rightful and legitimate, cannot be accepted from a welfare State.

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions advanced at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties. The only question, that arises for consideration at our hands, is the date from which arrears should be released to the respondents. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, during the course of hearing, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel representing the State of Haryana, had invited our attention to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein, on the subject in question, this Court had observed as under:

"55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so-called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court." (emphasis is ours) Having perused the determination rendered by this Court in the Umadevi's case (supra), we are satisfied, that in terms of the above judgment, arrears should have been held, to be payable to the respondents, only with effect from the date when the impugned judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court,

3 of 4

CWP-11489-2013 and connected cases Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127985

i.e., with effect from 1.4.2013. We are indeed bound to follow the aforesaid declared position, by the Constitution Bench of this Court. More so because, the legal position on the subject was uncertain, in view of the conflicting position reflected on the subject, by different judgments of the High Court. The correct legal position was declared for the first time, through the impugned judgment, which also held the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution as unconstitutional, to the extent of payment of wages. It is on the above and allied consideration, that we feel, that it would not be appropriate to extend the benefits of arrears to the respondents, keeping in view the period of limitation, for payment of monetary claims. In view of the above, we hereby dismiss all the civil appeals on merits. Insofar as the payment of arrears is concerned, the impugned order is modified, and a direction is hereby issued, that arrears will be paid to the respondents with effect from the date of the impugned judgment, namely, with effect from 1.4.2013.

11. While determining the issue, as to from which date the arrears should be paid to the respondents, this Court cannot be oblivious to the rights of those, who had not approached the High Court or this Court, nor can it be oblivious to the rights of those persons, who had entered into a settlement with the State Government, and had accepted arrears, with effect from 1.1.2014. It is imperative for us, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice in the matter. We feel ourselves persuaded, to direct the State Government, to pay arrears of wages, to all persons similarly situated as the private respondents herein, in consonance with the impugned judgment, with effect from 1.4.2013, this would include those employees who had not approached the High Court or this Court, as well as, those who had entered into a settlement with the State Government, agreeing to accept arrears only with effect from 1.1.2014. Ordered accordingly."

4. The present petitions are disposed of in the light of aforesaid judgment.

5. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.

                                               ( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
26.09.2024                                            JUDGE
ashok
             Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes/No
             Whether reportable :              Yes/No




                                    4 of 4