Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandigarh Administration, … vs Cat, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh Etc on 31 August, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
and other connected cases
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M)
Reserved on: 29.8.2024
Date of Decision: 31.8.2024
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
2. CWP No. 6873 of 2012 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh ......Respondents
and others
3. CWP No. 27546 of 2013 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
4. CWP No. 20341 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Rohit Singh Rawat and another ......Respondents
5. CWP No. 23007 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Pardeep Kumar and others ......Respondents
1 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:55 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
and other connected cases
6. CWP No. 19723 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and another
7. CWP No. 19334 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Jasmer Singh and others ......Respondents
8. CWP No. 25058 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Neeru and others ......Respondents
9. CWP No. 25333 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Mona Chadha and others ......Respondents
10. CWP No. 18454 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Shilpa Jindal and others ......Respondents
11. CWP No. 5820 of 2015 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Manpreet Kaur Juneja and others ......Respondents
2 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -3-
and other connected cases
12. CWP No. 22581 of 2011 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
13. CWP No. 8628 of 2015 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Puneet Garg and others ......Respondents
14. CWP No. 345 of 2016 (O&M)
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
15. CWP No. 20790 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
16. CWP No. 20791 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
3 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -4-
and other connected cases
17. CWP No. 21695 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
18. CWP No. 21703 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
19. CWP No. 21706 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
20. CWP No. 21955 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
21. CWP No. 21956 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and another
22. CWP No. 21976 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
4 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -5-
and other connected cases
Chandigarh and others
23. CWP No. 26875 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
24. CWP No. 26876 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
25. CWP No. 26877 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
26. CWP No. 26878 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
27. CWP No. 26879 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
5 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -6-
and other connected cases
28. CWP No. 26880 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and another
29. CWP No. 26881 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and another
30. CWP No. 26601 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
31. CWP No. 26602 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
32. CWP No. 26603 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and another
6 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -7-
and other connected cases
33. CWP No. 26604 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and another
34. CWP No. 24902 of 2015 (O&M)
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Madhavi and others ......Respondents
35. CWP No. 20690 of 2016 (O&M)
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
36. CWP No. 20259 of 2012 (O&M)
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Shalinder Kaur and others ......Respondents
37. CWP No. 1127 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
38. CWP No. 1168 of 2014 (O&M)
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, ......Respondents
Chandigarh and others
7 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -8-
and other connected cases
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel U.T. with
Mr. Sumeet Jain, Addl. Standing Counsel and
Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and
Mr. Himanshu Arora, Panel Counsel
for the petitioner/U.T. Chandigarh (in CWP-26880-2016 &
CWP-26881-2016).
Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, Addl. Standing Counsel
petitioner/U.T. Chandigarh (in CWP-1127-2014).
Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Addl. Standing Counsel
for petitioner/U.T. Chandigarh in (CWP-25333-2014).
Mr. Ankit Midha, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
U.T. Chandigarh in (CWP-19334-2014, CWP345-2016 and
CWP-25058-2014).
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for
the petitioner(s)/U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CWP-23007-2014).
Dr. Neha Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-27546-2013 and CWP-26878, 26879 of 2016).
Mr. Lokesh Chander Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CWP-24902-2015).
Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-18454-2014, CWP-21695-2016 and CWP-21703-2016).
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Rishu Bajaj, Advocate
for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9,14, 16, 17 and 19 to 23
(in CWP-6873-2013).
Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate and
Mr. Shubham, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CWP-6873-2013).
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and
Ms. Mehndi Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-26604-2016).
Mr. J.S. Chandail, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-20341-2014 & 19280-2011).
8 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -9-
and other connected cases
Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-5820-2015).
Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-21955-2016, CWP-21706-2016 & CWP-25058-2014).
Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate, for respondents
No.2 to 5, 9 to 12 & 14 (in CWP-19280-2011);
for respondent Nos.3, 13, 16, 76, 87, 92, 99, 102,
103, 104, 106, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122 (in CWP-20790-2016);
for respondent Nos.2,3,4 & 9 (in CWP-20791-2016);
for respondent Nos.4 & 7 (in CWP-21955-2016);
for respondent Nos.2 to 8 & 10 to 12 (in CWP-21976-2016).
Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for the respondent
(in CWP-26603-2016).
Mr. Puneet Gupta, for Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate
for respondent No.1 (in CWP-24902-2015
and for respondent No.2 in (CWP-27546-2013).
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate
for respondents No.2, 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 14, 16, 17, 19 to 23.
Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate
for respondent No.2 (in CWP-1168-2014)
and for respondent No.1 in (CWP-18454-2014).
Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate and
Mr. Naveen Nandal, Advocate and
Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate
for respondents 21 to 35 (in CWP-20690-2016).
Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 17 (in CWP-23007-2014)
for respondents No. 1 to 16 (CWP-19334-2014),
for respondent No. 2 (in CWP-25058-2014),
for respondent No. 1 (in CWP-20341-2014),
for respondent No. 8 (in CWP-345-2016) and
for respondents No. 1 and 2 (in CWP-5820-2015).
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Though, all the writ petitions (supra) arise from different
advertisement notices, and, though separate decisions became recorded in
some of the writ petitions (supra), in respect of different advertisements
(supra). However, since reliefs, have been granted to all the private
9 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -10-
and other connected cases
respondents herein, thus while relying upon the decisions passed by the
Tribunal concerned, in a bunch of cases i.e. in OA No. 33/CH/2011 titled as
Vandana Jain and others versus Union of India and others (challenged in
CWP-19280-2011) and in OA No. 905/CYH/2011 titled as Parul Aggarwal
and others versus Union of India and others (challenged in CWP-6873-
2013), whereins becomes expostulated the principle of equal pay for equal
work. Therefore, all the writ petitions (supra) are amenable for a common
verdict being made thereons.
2. Nonetheless, the short facts of the each cases (supra) and the
reliefs claimed thereins are as under.
(1) CWP-19280-2011
In the present case, a prayer has been made for setting aside the
order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’) Chandigarh Bench. It is averred in the instant
petition, that respondents No. 2 to 15 had approached the Tribunal
concerned, by way of filing OA No. 33/CH/2011 with a prayer that
directions be issued to the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace
them by contractual appointees and to continue them in service till the posts
are filled on regular basis. It is averred in the instant petition that the claim
of the respondents No. 2 to 15 was allowed by the Tribunal concerned,
without appreciating the reasons compelling the petitioner-Administration to
appoint them as Lecturers on contract basis against Additional Vacancies in
various Government Colleges in U.T., Chandigarh.
(2) CWP-6873-2013
In the instant case, a prayer has been made for setting aside the
order dated 9.1.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT. It is averred in the
10 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -11-
and other connected cases
instant petition, that the private respondents herein had approached the
Tribunal concerned, with a prayer that directions be issued to the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled on regular
basis. Vide impugned order (supra), the said relief became allowed to the
respondents by the Tribunal concerned. Hence the instant petition.
(3) CWP-27546-2013
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2012
(Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT. It is averred in the instant petition, that
respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Lecturer on contract basis in the month
of May 2006. She was relieved from college to pursue higher studies. In
February 2009, respondent No. 2 was again appointed as Lecturer on
contract basis. It is further averred that respondent No. 2 again applied for
maternity leave, which was granted to her, and, she proceeded on leave with
effect from 1.2.2011 for a period of three months. Thereafter she resumed
her duties on 29.4.2011 and sought the benefits for the months on which she
remained on maternity leave. Since the said benefits were not released to
her, she proceeded to file O.A. No. 104/CH/2012 before the Tribunal
concerned, seeking therein the relief that she be not replaced by the
contractual employee, and, to pay her the salary for the period she remained
on maternity leave. Vide impugned order (supra), the O.A. (supra) filed by
respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Tribunal concerned. Hence the instant
petition.
(4) CWP-20341-2013
In the instant case, pursuant to an advertisement, respondent
No. 1 had applied for the contractual post of Peon. Subsequently, respondent
11 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -12-
and other connected cases
No. 1 was appointed as Peon on contract basis. After completion of his
contract term of six months on 26.4.2012, respondent No. 1 was relieved
from duties and became re-appointed on 1.5.2012 after a break of 5 days. It
is further averred that before completion of his second term of six months,
respondent No.1 had filed OA No. 1192/CH/2012 before the Tribunal
concerned, seeking relief thereins that he be not replaced by the contractual
employee, and, that he is entitled to continue in service till the post is filled
on regular basis, besides he is also entitled to minimum of the pay scale with
D.A. Vide the impugned order dated 27.8.2013 the O.A. (supra) filed by
respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Tribunal concerned. Hence the instant
petition.
(5) CWP-23007-2014
The challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated
9.1.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal concerned in OA No.
1260/CH/-2011, seeking relief thereins that they be allowed to continue in
service till the regular appointees join, besides they be also allowed
vacations and salary for that period. Vide the impugned order dated (supra),
the O.A. (supra) filed by the respondents concerned, became allowed by the
Tribunal concerned. It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No.
1 to 11 and 13 to 17 are working as Lecturers, whereas, respondents No. 12
and 18 who were also working as Lecturers resigned and their resignation
was accepted by petitioner No. 3 respectively on 17.6.2012 and 1.6.2012.
The all the above respondents were appointed on contractual basis. It is
further averred in the instant petition that on the basis of apprehension that
their services will be terminated on the expiry of one year from the date of
their appointment, thus the private respondents herein filed the application
12 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -13-
and other connected cases
(supra).
(6) CWP-19723-2014
The instant petition is directed against the order dated
20.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT. It is averred in the instant
petition that respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Fitter-cum-Mechanic on
contract basis, through an appointment letter dated 4.8.2010 for a period of
4.8.2010 to 3.2.2011 at a consolidated salary of Rs. 9500/- per month. It is
further averred thereins that respondent No.2 filed an application under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Tribunal
concerned, seeking relief thereins that the respondents be directed to not put
break in the service/appointment of the respondent and not to replace him by
contractual appointee. The said application vide the impugned order became
allowed by the Tribunal concerned. Hence, the instant petition.
(7) CWP-19334-2014
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby the
Original Application No. 957/CH/2013 filed by the respondent has been
allowed by the CAT. It is averred in the instant petition that in response to
an advertisement for the post of Workshop Instructor on contract basis for a
period not exceeding six months, respondents No. 1 to 3 applied for the said
post, and, after following due process w.e.f. 3.10.2005, they were appointed
as Workshop Instructors. Similarly, in the years 2006, 2008 and 2010
similar advertisements were also issued for the post of Workshop Instructors
and respondents No. 4 to 6 were also appointed as Workshop Instructor(s).
It is also averred that after completion of the contractual terms, respondents
were relieved by the petitioner. Being aggrieved therefrom, respondents No.
13 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -14-
and other connected cases
1 to 4 along with one Narinder Singh had approached the Tribunal
concerned by filing of OA No. 475-CH-2007. However, the Tribunal
observed that since the relief claimed by the applicants had rather been
granted to them, as such, the said application became disposed of as having
been rendered infructuous. It is further averred in the instant petition, that
the private respondents herein again had approached the Tribunal concerned
by filing of OA No. 957-CH-2012, seeking relief thereins that he is entitled
to minimum of admissible pay scale plus DA as revised from time to time,
and, that they should be allowed to continue with their service till regular
appointments are made. Vide the impugned order, the said application
became allowed by the Tribunal. Hence, the instant petition.
(8) CWP-25058-2014
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 1 was appointed as
Clerk with petitioner No. 2 on contract basis initially for a period of six
months. Respondent No. 1 was relieved on completion of her contract term
of six months, and, subsequently had been appointed on contract basis on
various occasions. It is further averred in the instant petition, that
before completion of her contract term of five months, she had filed OA
No. 934/CH/-2012, seeking relief thereins that they be not replaced by the
contractual appointees, and, that the respondents therein, be directed to pay
the applicants minimum of the pay scale w.e.f their initial date of
appointment minus the consolidated salary already paid to the applicants.
Vide the impugned order, the said application became allowed by the CAT.
Hence, the instant petition.
14 of 61
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -15-
and other connected cases
(9) CWP-25333-2014
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 1.7.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT. It
is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 1 to 5 had been
appointed as Lecturers on contractual basis and their services were renewed
after every six months. The respondents had approached the learned
Tribunal by filing of OA No. 08-CH-2013, seeking relief(s) thereins, that
they be granted minimum of pay scale plus admissible dearness allowance
since the initial appointment, and, also sought the release of arrears of salary
by granting minimum of pay scale and admissible dearness allowance from
time to time. Vide the impugned order, the said application became allowed
by the CAT. Hence, the instant petition.
(10) CWP-5280-2015
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 12.5.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 1 to 2 were
appointed as Instructor Computer Operator and Programming Assistants in
Government Industrial Training Institute for Women, Sector-11,
Chandigarh, on contractual basis, and, that their appointments had been
made subject to that the initial assignment would be for a period of six
months or till the posts were filled on regular basis through UPSC whichever
is earlier. It is further averred thereins, that their services were renewed as
per their appointment letters. The respondents had approached CAT by
filing of OA No. 305-CH-2013 seeking thereins relief of release of arrears of
salary by granting minimum of pay scale, grade pay and dearness allowance,
as admissible to regular employees. Vide the impugned order (supra), the
15 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -16-
and other connected cases
said application became allowed by the CAT. Hence, the instant petition.
(11) CWP-18454-2014
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 22.3.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 1 was appointed as
Lecturer on contract basis, and, her service was renewed after every six
months by giving her a notional break of one working day. Subsequently
pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor, respondent
No. 1 selected by the selection committee concerned, and, was re-designated
as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 19.1.2009. It is further averred thereins, that
respondent No. 1 had approached CAT by filing of OA No. 1492/CH/-2012
seeking thereins relief for grating her minimum of pay scale, and, for the
release of arrears of salary. Vide the impugned order (supra), the said
application became allowed by the CAT. Hence, the instant petition.
(12) CWP-22581-2011
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 3 and 4 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 331/CH/2011, laying a challenge to the
office order dated 10.3.2010 and the notification dated 23.6.2010 wherebys
they were ordered to be relieved from service as Lecturer on contract basis.
In the said application, the respondents herein had also sought directions
upon the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by
contractual appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled
in on regular basis. The said application became allowed by the CAT.
Hence the instant petition.
16 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -17-
and other connected cases
(13) CWP-8628-2015
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
The respondents herein had approached CAT by filing OA No. 1039-CH-
2012, seeking relief(s) thereins, that the petitioners herein be restrained from
breaking the service of the respondents, and, their services be continued as
contractual appointees till the regular appointments are not made, besides for
granting them the salary for vacations and maternity/paternity relief. They
further prayed that they be granted minimum of pay scale of the post of
Training and Placement Officer, Lab Technician, Computer Assistant, Lab
Attendant, Workshop Assistant and Workshop Attendant with grade pay and
dearness allowance, as increased from time to time with effect from their
initial date of appointment. The said application filed by the respondents
herein, became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(14) CWP-345-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 6 and 8 were
appointed as Clerks on contract basis, whereas respondent No. 7 was
appointed as Driver on daily wage basis. All the appointments were made on
contract basis for a period of six months, and, after giving a notional break
of one day after the expiry of contractual period, the contract of the
respondents was renewed. It is further averred in the instant petition that on
the basis of apprehension that their contract may not be renewed due to the
said notional break, the respondents had approached the CAT by filing of
OA No. 1040-CH-2012, seeking thereins relief(s) that the petitioners herein
17 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -18-
and other connected cases
be restrained from putting a one day notional break in the appointment of the
respondents after completion of every semester and not to replace them by
contractual appointees. Vide the impugned order (supra), the said application
became allowed by the CAT. Hence, the instant petition.
(15) CWP-20790-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 122 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 36/CH/2011, seeking directions upon the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order, the
said application filed by the respondents concerned, became allowed by the
CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(16) CWP-20791-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 10 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 140/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
18 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -19-
and other connected cases
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order, the
said application filed by the respondents concerned, became allowed by the
CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(17) CWP-21695-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 7 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 147/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order, the
said application filed by the respondents concerned, became allowed by the
CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(18) CWP-21703-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 13 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 173/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
19 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -20-
and other connected cases
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(19) CWP-21706-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 14 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 149/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(20) CWP-21955-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 8 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 147/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
20 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -21-
and other connected cases
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(21) CWP-21956-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 13.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT,
while relying upon the order dated 31.3.2011 passed in connected bunch of
matters. It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 2 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 341/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace her by contractual
appointees and to continue her in service till the posts are filled in on regular
basis, besides for granting her the salary for vacations. In addition, she had
also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to prepare
a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and to
follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order(supra),
the said application filed by the respondents concerned, became allowed by
the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(22) CWP-21976-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 12 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 287/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
21 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -22-
and other connected cases
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(23) CWP-26875-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 179/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(24) CWP-26876-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to -7 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 236/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
22 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -23-
and other connected cases
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(25) CWP-26877-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 5 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 271/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order
(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned, became
allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(26) CWP-26878-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 2 had approached
CAT by filing OA No. 225/CH/2011, seeking directions upon the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace her by contractual
appointees and to continue her in service till the posts are filled in on regular
basis, besides for granting her the salary for vacations. In addition, she had
23 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -24-
and other connected cases
also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to prepare
a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and to
follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order(supra),
the said application filed by the respondents concerned, became allowed by
the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(27) CWP-26879-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 218/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(28) CWP-26880-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 2 had approached
CAT by filing OA No. 758/CH/2010, seeking directions upon the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace her by contractual
appointees and to continue her in service till the posts are filled in on regular
basis, besides for granting her the salary for vacations. In addition, she had
24 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -25-
and other connected cases
also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to prepare
a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and to
follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order(supra),
the said application filed by the respondent concerned, became allowed by
the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(29) CWP-26881-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 2 had approached
CAT by filing OA No. 216/CH/2011, seeking directions upon the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace her by contractual
appointees and to continue her in service till the posts are filled in on regular
basis, besides for granting her the salary for vacations. In addition, she had
also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to prepare
a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and to
follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order(supra),
the said application filed by the respondent concerned, became allowed by
the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(30) CWP-26601-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 to 4 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 234/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
25 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -26-
and other connected cases
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned,
became allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(31) CWP-26602-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 170/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order
(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned, became
allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(32) CWP-26603-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 2 had approached
CAT by filing OA No. 163/CH/2011, seeking directions upon the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace her by contractual
appointees and to continue her in service till the posts are filled in on regular
basis, besides for granting her the salary for vacations. In addition, she had
26 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -27-
and other connected cases
also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to prepare
a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and to
follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order(supra),
the said application filed by the respondent concerned, became allowed by
the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(33) CWP-26604-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 2 had approached
CAT by filing OA No. 177/CH/2011, seeking directions upon the
Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace him by contractual
appointees and to continue him in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting him the salary for vacations. In addition,
he had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondent concerned, became
allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(34) CWP-24902-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 4.9.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondent No. 1 was appointed as
Lecturer on contract basis, and, her service was renewed after every six
months by giving her a notional break of one working day. Subsequently
pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor, respondent
No. 1 selected by the selection committee concerned, and, was re-designated
27 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -28-
and other connected cases
as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 19.2.2009. It is further averred thereins, that
respondent No. 1 had approached CAT by filing of OA No. 060/00262/2014
seeking relief(s) thereins qua grating her minimum of pay scale plus
admissible D.A., and, for the release of arrears of salary. Vide the impugned
order(supra), the said application filed by the respondent concerned, became
allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(35) CWP-20690-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT.
It is averred in the instant petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 had
approached CAT by filing OA No. 166/CH/2011, seeking directions upon
the Chandigarh Administration rather not to replace them by contractual
appointees and to continue them in service till the posts are filled in on
regular basis, besides for granting them the salary for vacations. In addition,
they had also sought directions being issued upon the authority concerned, to
prepare a combine a subject-wise seniority list of contractual appointees and
to follow the principle of ‘First come last go’. Vide the impugned order
(supra), the said application filed by the respondents concerned, became
allowed by the CAT. Hence the instant petition.
(36) CWP-20259-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 17.7.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CAT,
whereby the OA No. 201/HR/2012, filed by respondent No. 1 became
allowed and she was held entitled to continue as a contractual
Lecturer/Assistant Professor till she is replaced by a regularly appointed
Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
28 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -29-
and other connected cases
(37) CWP-1127-2016
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 9.8.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT.,
whereby OA No. 90-CH-2012, filed by the respondents herein became
allowed by the CAT while relying upon a decision passed by the Tribunal
concerned, upon O.A. No. 905/CG/2011 titled as ‘Parul Aggarwal and
others versus UOI and others’.
(38) CWP-1168-2014
In the instant petition, the petitioners have sought the quashing
of the impugned order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the CAT,
upon OA No.1226-CH-2011 filed by respondent No. 2, wherebys she had
sought qua a direction being made upon the petitioner concerned, to not
replace her by contractual appointees, and, for also sought maternity
benefits, as per various orders of the Tribunal concerned. It is averred in the
instant petition, that vide the impugned order, the application (supra) became
allowed by the CAT while holding that respondent No. 2 would be entitled
to grant of maternity leave for a period of 180 days as per the
recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission. Hence the instant petition.
3. In the impugned verdict passed by the CAT, appended to CWP-
19280-2011 as Annexure P-1, verdict whereof became relied upon by the
CAT while passing the decision in other writ petitions (supra), thus the CAT
made the hereinafter conclusions, which occur in paragraph 38 of the said
verdict.
“38. In the present case too:-
(i) There is no controversy that the applicants are qualified as
per the norms and guidelines issued by the UGC for appointments
as Lecturers;
29 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -30-
and other connected cases
(ii) It is also apparent from the record that the applications for
appointment had been invited by the Director Technical Education
and the selections had been made by a duly constituted Selection
Committee; and
(iii) A presentation was made by the Union Territory
Administration in the course of hearing that a proposal for sanction
of 212 posts of lecturers (additional vacancies) had been forwarded
to the concerned authorities in the Government of India. It was a
common ground that besides these additional vacancies, 370 posts
of lecturers area already sanctioned in the Union Territory of
Chandigarh.
4. Subsequently, vide the impugned verdict, the hereinafter
extracted impugned directions became passed by the CAT.
“(i) The applicants shall not be replaced by contractual
employees and they shall continue in service till the posts are
filled up on regular basis;
(ii) The official respondents are directed to prepare a
combined (subjectwise) seniority list of contractual lecturers
and they shall be further duty-bound to follow the principle of
‘First come, last go’ in the matter of engagement of laid off
lecturers and also the directions issued by the Coordinate
Benches of this Tribunal in Krishan Kumar’s case and Santosh
Malik’s case (supra). The yearly intake of the contractual
lecturers shall, obviously, be need-based.
(iii) The clauses, in terms and conditions of the appointment
letters issued to the applicants restricting the appointment to a
period of eight months and also denying the salary for the
vacation period to them, are held to be unconstitutional and
are quashed; and
(iv) In view of the categorical law laid down by the learned
Coordinate Bench in KRISHAN KUMAR VS. UNION
TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & OTHERS (supra)
(wherein appropriate sustenance was drawn from the view
obtained by the Apex Court in RATTAN LAL & OTHERS VS.
30 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -31-
and other connected cases
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. FEMALE WORKERS
(MUSTER ROLL) AND ANOTHER (supra), and also a
Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in the case of RAJ BALA VS. STATE OF HARYANA:
2002(3) RSJ(43), all the contractual lecturers shall be entitled
to minimum of the pay scale of the post, with Dearness
Allowance, as admissible from time to time and also the
maternity leave to the extent indicated in that judgment
(Krishan Kumar’s case). The benefit of maternity leave would
be available to a female contractual employee, with less than
two surviving children. The duration thereof would be the same
as has been recommended by the Vith Central Pay
Commission.”
5. In the other writ petitions (supra), almost similar conclusion(s)
became drawn by the CAT, and, almost similar directions became passed, as
became passed in Annexure P-1 (in CWP-19280-2011).
Submissions of the learned counsels for the respondents
6. The learned counsels for the respondents have vigorously
argued, that with this Court on 2.12.2019, thus making the hereinafter
extracted directions:-
“The Chandigarh Administration has challenged the order dated
31.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandingarh Bench (in short ‘the
Tribunal’), inter alia, granting the relief of payment of ‘Dearness
Allowance’ to the contractual employees with effect from original
dates of applications of the respondent(s)-Contractual Masters /
Lecturers employed by the Education Department of U.T.,
Chandigarh.
It transpires that the benefit of admissible ‘Dearness
Allowance’, equivalent to the counter-parts working on regular
basis, already stands released to the respondent(s)-Contractual
Teachers w.e.f. 36 (thirty-six) months prior to the date(s) of filing of31 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DBCWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -32-
and other connected casesthe original application(s) before the Tribunal by the private
respondents. It is also evident that in service jurisprudence, the
benefit of ‘Dearness Allowance’ cannot be extended on notional
basis with effect from the retrospective date, and therefore, to that
extent the impugned order dated 31.03.2011 (P-1) passed by the
Tribunal has to be modified.
To render the present writ petition(s) infructuous, an affidavit
of the Secretary Education, U.T., Chandigarh, qua all the private
respondents herein, extending the benefit in view of the aforesaid
terms be filed by the next date of hearing, so as to settle the issue(s).
Adjourned to 18.12.2019.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of
connected case(s).”
7. Therefore, it is further argued, that since a reading of the above
extracted order reveals, that since therebys the espoused benefits became
released to the respondents-contractual teachers, thus with retrospective
effect. Moreover, since it is also stated thereins, that in service
jurisprudence, the benefit of Dearness Allowance, cannot be extended on
notional basis, thus with retrospective effect. Resultantly, the impugned
order(s) became declared to be modified, inasmuch as, the said relief though
became validly granted with retrospective effect, but untenably only on
notional basis, whereupon the dearness allowances payable to the
respondents herein become directed to be disbursed to them with
retrospective effect. Moreover, it was also declared thereins, that to make the
writ petitions becoming rendered infructuous, thus a direction being required
to be made upon the Secretary Education, U.T., Chandigarh, to file an
affidavit that in view of the according of the espoused benefits to the
contractual Teachers, therebys the said writ petitions are required to be
declared as becoming rendered infructuous.
8. Furthermore, it is also contended that when the writ petitions
32 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -33-
and other connected cases
(supra) became listed on 18.12.2019, thus the hereinafter extracted
directions were passed wherebys the apposite affidavits were asked to be
filed, thus declaring thereins the rationale in granting dearness allowance to
the contractual employees with effect from 1.1.2016. Therefore, it is
vehemently contended, that with the assigning(s) of the claimed benefits to
the respondents herein, wherebys compliance becomes made to the
impugned directions, carried in Annexure P-1 (CWP-19280-2011),
resultantly, the instant writ petitions become rendered infructuous.
“Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, learned counsel for the petitioner in one
of the case prays for more time to file the required affidavit.
Adjourned to 23.4.2020.
However, it is clarified that the said affidavit would also indicate
the rationale in granting dearness allowance to the contract
employees w.e.f. 1.1.2016 who have been granted the minimum of
the pay scale as wages in place of the previous fixed salary.”
Reasons for rejecting the above contentions
9. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the said
made argument does not appeal to the judicial conscience of this Court, nor
therebys the learned counsel for the petitioner becomes estopped to argue
vis-a-vis the entitlement of the respondents-contractual teachers qua the
espoused reliefs, as become accorded to them, through the makings of the
impugned directions.
10. The reason for making the said conclusion spurs from a reading
of the hereinafter extracted directions, as become carried in an order
rendered by this Court on 6.10.2016, especially when thereins it has been
explicitly stated that the release(s) of dearness allowances to the contractual
Teachers rather shall be subject to theirs furnishing affidavits to the extent,
that the said releases shall be subject to the makings of apposite adjustments,
33 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -34-
and other connected cases
thus in the event of the writ petitions becoming decided against them.
“We are not inclined to grant interim relief to the
applicants/petitioners as prayed for, for the simple reason that the
execution before the Tribunal has been pending since years and this
application has been moved now belatedly. That apart, we are also
concerned with the fact that the Administration is persistently
employing Lecturers on contractual basis which would imply that
there is a regular need available and yet such an exploitative
practice has been adopted by it. The issue whether the contractual
employees would be admissible to the benefit of DA would certainly
be gone into at the time of final disposal of the writ proceedings, but
we find no reason to grant any interim relief as we feel that the
Administration is virtually exploiting human resources to its
advantage by subjecting the Lecturers to contractual employment
year after year without taking a decision to absorb them on regular
basis. The amount of DA shall, therefore, be released to the
Lecturers in terms of the order of the Tribunal subject to their
furnishing affidavits that this amount would be subject to adjustment
in the event of the decision of the writ proceedings against them.
Application stands disposed of.”
11. Furthermore, since disclosures occur in an affidavit sworn by
Purva Garg, IAS, Education Secretary, qua the affidavits (supra) becoming
furnished by the respondents-contractual Teachers, thereupon, the
respondents-contractual Teachers, when did also make compliances to the
directions (supra) passed by this Court. Resultantly, therebys they
acquiesced to the validity of the said passed directions, thereupon unless a
decision on merits over the writ petitions (supra) become passed, besides
when therebys the apposite impugned order Annexure P-1 (in CWP-19280-
2011) becomes affirmed, therebys alone the respondents-contractual
Teachers, but would become indefeasibly entitled to the releases of dearness
allowance being made to them in terms of the conditional order (supra).
Contrarily upon the impugned decision becoming reversed, thereupon, the
34 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -35-
and other connected cases
respondents would be required to, in terms of their furnished affidavits, thus
either make refunds of the excess amount or seek adjustments thereofs from
the wages/salaries to be liquidated to them hereafters.
Submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners
12. Be that as it may, the learned counsels for the petitioner(s) has
vigorously argued that the impugned verdict wherebys on purported
application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, thus the impugned
directions become made, rather makes palpable contraventions vis-a-vis the
verdict recorded by the Apex Court in a case titled as State of Punjab and
others versus Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 148.
13. The learned counsels have further argued, that since the Apex
Court while stating in paragraph 5, as occurs in the verdict (supra), para
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, qua the issue relating to whether
temporary engaged employees are entitled to minimum of the regular pay
scale along with dearness allowance on account of their performing the same
duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the
sanctioned posts, did allude, to a decision recorded by Full Bench of this
Court in Avtar Singh versus State of Punjab, reported in 2011 SCC Online
P&H 15326, whereins, there is a declaration that the temporary employees
were not per se entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, despite
performing duties similar to the one, as became performed by the regular
employees.
14. Since subsequently reiteratedly thereins, the Apex Court after
referring to Avtar Singh’s case (supra), whereins, it becomes stated, that
merely upon the daily wagers and other alike temporary employees
35 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -36-
and other connected cases
performing duties or functions similar to the ones, as became performed by
the regular appointees rather they cannot become extended the benefit of
principle of equal pay for equal work, rather at par with the regularly
appointed employees.
15. Moreover thereins yet an exception to the said principle
becomes carved, inasmuch as, upon the engagements in service of the
employees, other than the regularly appointed employees taking place yet
after the said employees evidently undergoing the rigour of the selection
process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible
candidates, thereupons they do become entitled, thus to minimum of the
regular pay scale from the date of engagement. Furthermore, it also becomes
declared thereins, that with the employer continuously availing the services
of the employees, who though become appointed against substantive posts,
but yet are not regularly appointed against the apposite substantive
posts/vacancies, besides when they become assigned notional breaks in the
continuity of their services, yet the employees other than the regular
employees, who are appointed against substantive posts, but after theirs
undergoing the selection process, which otherwise was required to be
undergone by the regular employees appointed against the substantive posts,
thereupon those employees who were temporarily appointed against
substantive posts, thus do become vested with an equitable right to claim the
minimum of the regular pay scale but without allowances.
16. It also became declared thereins that the said employees may be
extended the benefit of regularization in terms of the relevant permissible
scheme. The above spoken to exceptions, as become carved in Avtar
Singh’s case (supra), become extracted hereinafter. The said exceptions
36 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -37-
and other connected cases
also become referred by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others
versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). For emphasis the said speakings
occurring in para 5 of the judgment (supra) are underlined.
“5. The issue which arises for our consideration is, whether
temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual
employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-
scale, alongwith dearness allowance (as revised from time to time)
on account of their performing the same duties, which are
discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned
posts. The full bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the
above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary
employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-
scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily-
wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved
out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to
such employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the
High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the
regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a
selection process based upon fairness and equality of
opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to
minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are
not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their
services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the
State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long
period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or
contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the
regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption
that work of perennial nature is available and having worked
for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in
such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any,
may have to be considered separately in terms of legally
permissible scheme.
37 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -38-
and other connected cases
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after
more than three years and two months of completion of 10
years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or
contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of
three years and two months.”
17. Be that as it may, in the verdict (supra), the Apex Court after
referring to the afore expostulations of law/exceptions, as carved in Avtar
Singh’ case (supra), underlined exceptions whereof become hereinabove
extracted, subsequently proceeded to in paragraph 6 of the verdict (supra),
para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, examine the issue relating to
the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work in two stages,
inasmuch as the Apex Court, initially examining the issue whether equal pay
for equal work has been extended to the employees engaged on regular
basis, and, thereafter proceeded to analyze the rationale behind the
application of the said principle by making reference to different categories
of temporary employees.
“6. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present
set of appeals, necessitates a bird’s eye view on the legal position
declared by this Court, on the underlying ingredients, which govern
the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It is also necessary for
resolving the controversy, to determine the manner in which this
Court has extended the benefit of “minimum of the regular pay-
scale” alongwith dearness allowance, as revised from time to time,
to temporary employees (engaged on daily-wage basis, as ad-hoc
appointees, as employees engaged on casual basis, as contract
appointees, and the like). For the aforesaid purpose, we shall,
examine the above issue, in two stages. We shall first examine
situations where the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has
been extended to employees engaged on regular basis. And
thereafter, how the same has been applied with reference to
different categories of temporary employees.”
18. Furthermore ultimately in paragraph 55 of the verdict (supra),
38 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -39-
and other connected cases
para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, the Apex Court set aside the
decision recorded by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh’s case
(supra), and, further upheld the decision recorded by the Full Bench of this
Court in case titled as State of Punjab versus Rajinder Kumar reported in
2010 SCC Online P&H 13009, but with a 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.
“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 &
Ors. 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 and others versus Rajinder Singh and
others is also liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set
aside. e affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab and others
versus Rajinder Kumar, with the modification, that the concerned
employees 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.”
19. Resultantly therebys, the learned counsels have argued, that
since the exceptions (supra) carved in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) become
diluted, thereupon, the verdict rendered by the Apex Court wherebys the
verdict recorded in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra), thus became upheld but
with the slight modification (supra), thus holds the force, and, therebys the
writ petitions (supra) are required to be allowed.
20. Furthermore, the learned counsels have argued, that since the
Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled as State of Bihar and
others versus Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and
others reported in (2019) 18 Supreme Court Cases 301, thus in paragraph
106 thereof, para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, has diluted the
39 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -40-
and other connected cases
rigour of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Resultantly the
expostulation of law, as occurs in the above extracted paragraph applies with
aplomb to the facts at hand.
“106. In our considered view, there has been no violation of
the Rights of the Niyojit Teachers nor has there been any
discrimination against them. We do not find that the efforts on
part of the State Government could be labelled as unfair or
discriminatory. Consequently, the submissions as to how the
funds could and ought to be generated and what would be the
burden on the State Government and the Central Government,
do not arise for consideration. In our view, great strides have
been made by the State in the last decade. It has galvanised
itself into action and not only achieved the objectives of having
schools in every neighbourhood but has also succeeded in
increasing the literacy rate. It has also succeeded in having
more girl children in the stream of education and consequently
the TFR, as indicated above, has also improved to a great
extent. If these are the benefits or rewards which the society
stands to gain and achieve, the State ought to be given
appropriate free play. The tabular charts placed on record by
the State also show continuous improvements made by the
State in the packages made available to the Niyojit Teachers.
Said attempts also show that the State is moving in the right
direction and the gap which is presently existing between the
Government Teachers and the Niyojit Teachers would
progressively get diminished. Considering the large number of
Niyojit Teachers as against the Government Teachers, the
steps taken by the State as evident from various tabular charts
presented by it are in the right direction. At this juncture, any
directions as have been passed by the High Court, may break
even tempo which the State has consistently been able to
achieve.”
21. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above
40 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -41-
and other connected cases
made arguments are rudderless, and, are required to be rejected.
Reasons for rejecting the submissions of the learned counsel(s)
for the petitioner(s)
22. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the arguments raised
before this Court by the learned counsels for the petitioners are not
sustainable, and, as such they are rejected.
23. The Apex Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the verdict recorded in
State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra), paras whereof become
extracted hereinafter, has held as under:-
“3. Another division bench of the same High Court, in State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar dismissed an intra-Court appeal
preferred by the State of Punjab, arising out of the judgment
rendered by a learned single Judge in Rajinder Kumar v. State of
Punjab & Ors. (CWP no. 14050 of 1999, decided on 20.11.2002),
and affirmed the decision of the single Judge, in connected appeals
preferred by employees. The letters patent bench held, that the writ
petitioners (working as daily-wage Pump Operators, Fitters,
Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars, Ledger Clerks, Ledger
Keepers, Petrol Men, Surveyors, Fitter Coolies, Sewermen, and the
like), were entitled to minimum of the pay- scale, alongwith
permissible allowances (as revised from time to time), which were
being given to similarly placed regular employees. Arrears payable
to the concerned employees were limited to three years prior to the
filing of the writ petition. In sum and substance, the division bench
in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar affirmed the position
adopted by the learned single Judge in Rajinder Singh & Ors. v.
State of Punjab & Ors. . It is apparent, that the instant division
bench, concluded conversely as against the judgment rendered in
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh, by the earlier division
bench.
4. It would be relevant to mention, that the earlier judgment
rendered, in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. was
not noticed by the later division bench in State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Rajinder Kumar. Noticing a conflict of views expressed in the
41 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -42-
and other connected cases
judgments rendered by two division benches in the above matters, a
learned single Judge of the High Court, referred the matter for
adjudication to a larger bench, on 11.5.2011. It is, therefore, that a
full bench of the High Court, took up the issue, for resolving the
dispute emerging out of the differences of opinion expressed in the
above two judgments, in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
(CWP no. 14796 of 2003), alongwith connected writ petitions. The
full bench rendered its judgment on 11.11.2011. The present bunch
of cases, which we have taken up for collective disposal, comprise
of a challenge to the judgment rendered by the division bench of the
High Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors.; a
challenge to the judgment, referred to above in State of Punjab &
Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar; as also, a challenge to the judgment
rendered by the full bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State
of Punjab & Ors. This bunch of cases, also involves challenges to
judgments rendered by the High Court, by relying on the judgments
referred to above.”
24. Further in paragraphs 44 and 53 to 63 as become borne in the
verdict rendered in case titled as State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh and
others (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:-
“44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a
claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned temporary
employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’, with reference to regular employees:-
44.1 In the Dhirendra Chamoli case this Court examined a claim
for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal to
those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was
accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work
being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation –
in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society.
44.2 In the Surinder Singh case this Court held, that the right of
equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia,
from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had
been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was42 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DBCWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -43-
and other connected casesborne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee
was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular
establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact,
that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of
this Court, in the D.S. Nakara case.
44.3 In the Bhagwan Dass case this Court recorded, that in a
claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee would
remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any
difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would
make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made
on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of
villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the
applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether
the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one
year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered
inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ is concerned. It was held, that the claim
for equal wages would be sustainable, where an employee is
required to discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular
employees, and the concerned employee possesses the qualifications
prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court rejected the
contention advanced on behalf of the Government, that the plea of
equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable
because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary
scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year
basis.
44.4 In the Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T
Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case22 this
Court held, that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the
Constitution, Government could not deny a temporary employee, at
least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the
corresponding regular cadre, alongwith dearness allowance and
additional dearness allowance, as well as, all the other benefits
which were being extended to casual workers. It was also held, that
the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled),
doing the same work, into different categories, for payment of wages
at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act
of an employer, would amount to exploitation. And further that, the
43 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -44-
and other connected cases
same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore,
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
44.5 In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh this Court held, that
daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-
scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The
above direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned
employees, were doing the same work as regular incumbents
holding the same post, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’.
44.6 In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case, a Constitution
Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and
directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade
of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees.
Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important
distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was held that
the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of
absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable,
and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the work
component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High
Court, was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage
employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the
lowest grade of the cadre concerned.
44.7 In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, a three-Judge bench
of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court in State
of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, the
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case10, and
Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, laid down the correct law.
Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the concerned daily-wage
employees could establish, that they were performing equal work of
equal quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a
direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the
date of filing the writ petition), would be justified.
44.8 In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, based on decisions in several
cases (wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ had been
invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging similar duties,
as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his
wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart,
appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to any other
44 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -45-
and other connected cases
allowances or increments.
44.9 In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case33
this Court noticed, that the respondents were employed on contract
basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were actually
appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this
Court directed the employer to pay the respondents wages, in the
minimum of the pay-scales ascribed for the post of Assistant
Engineer.
x x x x
53. Yet again, all that needs to be stated is, that the observations
relied upon by the full bench of the High Court, dealt with the issue
of regularization, and not with the concept of `equal pay for equal
work’. Paragraph 7 extracted above, leaves no room for any doubt,
that the issue being considered in the Satya Prakash case, pertained
to regularisation of the appellants in service. Our view, that the
issue being dealt with pertained to regularisation gains further
ground from the fact (recorded in paragraph 1 of the above
judgment), that the appellants in the Satya Prakash case had
approached this Court, to claim the benefit of paragraph 53 of the
judgment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case. Paragraph 53
aforementioned, is reproduced below:-
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in State of Maysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR
1967 Supreme Court 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa v. T.
Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. Nagarajan v. State
of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507, and referred to in para 15
above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant
posts might have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularisation of the services of such employees
may have to be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of
India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the
services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for
45 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DBCWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -46-
and other connected casesten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further
bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising
or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme.”
A perusal of paragraph 53 extracted above, leaves no room
for any doubt, that the issue canvassed was of regularization, and
not pay parity.We are therefore of the view, that reliance on
paragraph 53, for determining the question of pay parity (claimed
by the concerned employees), resulted in the High Court drawing an
incorrect inference.
54. The full bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the
above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were
not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the
reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular
employees were similar. The full bench however, made two
exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two
exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-
scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the
full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are
extracted hereunder:-
“(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against
the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a
selection process based upon fairness and equality of
opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of
engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are
not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their
services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by46 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DBCWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -47-
and other connected casesthe State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient
long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or
contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the
regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption
that work of perennial nature is available and having worked
for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in
such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if
any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally
permissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after
more than three years and two months of completion of 10
years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or
contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period
of three years and two months.”
54.1 A perusal of the above conclusion drawn in the impugned
judgment (passed by the full bench), reveals that the full bench
carved an exception for employees who were not appointed against
regular sanctioned posts, if their services had remained continuous
(with notional breaks, as well), for a period of 10 years. This
category of temporary employees, was extended the benefit of wages
at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. In the Secretary, State of
Karnataka case, similarly, employees who had rendered 10 years
service, were granted an exception (refer to paragraph 53 of the
judgment, extracted in the preceding paragraph). The above
position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the High Court
intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the
subject of regularisation of employees, while adjudicating upon the
proposition of pay parity, emerging under the principle of `equal
pay for equal work’. In our view, it is this mix-up, which has
resulted in the High Court recording its afore-extracted
conclusions.
54.2 The High Court extended different wages to temporary
employees, by categorizing them on the basis of their length of
service. This is clearly in the teeth of judgment in the Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya
Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case. In the above judgment, this Court
held, that classification of employees based on their length of
47 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -48-
and other connected cases
service (- those who had not completed 720 days of service, in a
period of 3 years; those who had completed more than 720 days of
service with effect from 1.4.1977; and those who had completed
1200 days of service), for payment of different levels of wages (even
though they were admittedly discharging the same duties), was not
tenable. The classification was held to be violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution.
54.3 Based on the consideration recorded herein above, the
determination in the impugned judgment rendered by the full bench
of the High Court, whereby it classified temporary employees for
differential treatment on the subject of wages, is clearly
unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside.
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
& Ors., 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 & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. is
also liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set aside. We
affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder
Kumar, decided on 30.8.2010, with the modification, that the
concerned employees 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.
56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees
before this Court.
57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of `equal
pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different
provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded
through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and
constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all
the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
The parameters of the principle, have been summarised by us in
paragraph 42 herein above. The principle of `equal pay for equal
work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently
described as workcharge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual,
and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees,
has been summarised by us, in paragraph 44 herein above. The
48 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -49-
and other connected cases
above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being
reiterated by us, yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the
same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state.
Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very
foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at
a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide
food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and
dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity.
For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he
does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as
compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of
exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position.
Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as
it compels involuntary subjugation.
59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
1966. The same is reproduced below:-
“Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable
conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum,
with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal
value without distinction of any kind, in particular women
being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those
enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in
accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his
employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no
considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
49 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -50-
and other connected cases
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours
and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for
public holidays.”
India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the
same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in
view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above,
and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, the principle of `equal pay for equal work’
constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every
employee – whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
60. 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’ summarised 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 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
50 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -51-
and other connected cases
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 summarised 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.
61. 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 pay-scale (-at the
lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular
employees, holding the same post.
62. Disposed of in the above terms.
63. It would be unfair for us, if we do not express our gratitude
for the assistance rendered to us by Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Additional
Advocate General, Punjab. He researched for us, on our asking, all
the judgments on the issue of pay parity. He presented them to us,
irrespective of whether the conclusions recorded therein, would or
would not favour the cause supported by him. He also assisted us,
on different parameters and outlines, suggested by us, during the
course of hearing.”
25. The conclusion, as recorded in paragraph 55 of the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others versus Jagjit
Singh’s case (supra), thus has been read in isolation, vis-a-vis, the consistent
declarations alluded to in the verdict (supra). The said consistent
declarations are manifested, thus in hereinabove extracted underlined
paragraphs 57 and 58, borne in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
the verdict (supra). The said paragraphs becomes underlined only for the
sake of emphasis, vis-a-vis, the expostulation of law relating to parity of pay
being assignable to the employees appointed on a contractual basis, adhoc
51 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -52-
and other connected cases
basis or on daily wage basis rather with regularly appointed employees
against substantive posts. A close scrutiny of the hereinabove extracted
paragraphs, thus evidently display that, upon evident performance of
apposite similar work by the daily wagers or those who are appointed on an
adhoc basis or on a contractual basis, therebys they become entitled to parity
of pay with regular employees appointed against substantive posts.
26. Reiteratedly, the above underlined paragraphs are self-speaking
to the effect that in case daily wagers, contractually appointed employees or
those who serve on adhoc basis, are evidently performing works/duties or
discharging the responsibilities similar to the ones, as become performed or
discharged by the regularly appointed employees against substantive posts,
thereupon, the daily wagers, contractually appointed employees, or those
who serve on adhoc basis, rather become entitled to parity of pay along with
the employees who are appointed on a regular basis against substantive
posts.
27. Conspicuously, though therebys there is ample room for
clinchingly concluding, that the respondents would become entitled to parity
of pay, as became determined through the impugned verdict(s), thus with the
regularly appointed employees against the substantive posts, especially with
theirs performing duties or discharging responsibilities, as would
respectively become so performed or discharged by the regularly appointed
employees against substantive vacancies. Imperatively so, when the
appointment of the respondents on contractual basis were made but against
substantive posts. As such, when they evidently performed duties and
discharged liabilities which would otherwise become so performed or
discharged by the regularly appointed employees against advertised
52 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -53-
and other connected cases
substantive posts, thus whereagainsts the respondents became appointed,
therebys they become entitled to parity of pay with the regularly appointed
employees.
28. However, the learned counsels for the petitioners have re-
emphasized upon the conclusion borne in paragraph 55 of the verdict
(supra), as carried in the verdict recorded in State of Punjab and others
versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). However, the reliance as placed thereons
for ousting the respondents’ claim for parity of pay with the regularly
appointed employees against substantive posts, but also is a misfounded
reliance. The reason being that in the verdict (supra), the Apex Court has
upheld the verdict made by by Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab
versus Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra) but with a 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. Contrarily rather therebys the said
modified granted relief but makes the respondents concerned, to make a well
espousal qua theirs becoming entitled to minimum of pay scales to the
category to which they belong. Therefore, therebys obviously the conclusion
borne in paragraph 55 in the verdict (supra) recorded by the Apex Court,
wherebys the decision recorded by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar
Singh’s case (supra) became annulled, especially when thereins an
expostulation of law exists, but bearing affinity to the modified relief, as
became granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while pronouncing
the decision in case titled as State of Punjab versus Rajinder Kumar
(supra). Resultantly the conclusion made in para 55 (supra), but requires
that the same be read in context of the hereinafter extracted inferences, as
53 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -54-
and other connected cases
became also recorded in State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra).
29. Be that as it may, the conclusions (supra) to the considered
mind of this Court, appears to be a sequel of paragraph 54.1, which
hereinafter becomes both extracted, and, also becomes underlined, and,
which occurs in the verdict rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab
and others versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra).
“54.1 A perusal of the above conclusion drawn in the impugned
judgment (passed by the full bench), reveals that the full bench
carved an exception for employees who were not appointed against
regular sanctioned posts, if their services had remained continuous
(with notional breaks, as well), for a period of 10 years. This
category of temporary employees, was extended the benefit of wages
at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. In the Secretary, State of
Karnataka case, similarly, employees who had rendered 10 years
service, were granted an exception (refer to paragraph 53 of the
judgment, extracted in the preceding paragraph). The above
position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the High Court
intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the
subject of regularisation of employees, while adjudicating upon the
proposition of pay parity, emerging under the principle of `equal
pay for equal work’. In our view, it is this mix-up, which has
resulted in the High Court recording its afore-extracted
conclusions.”
30. A reading of the said paragraphs unfolds the reasons which
prevailed upon the Apex Court in recording the conclusion, as borne in
paragraph 55 of the verdict (supra). A circumspect reading of the above
extracted paragraph does not leave any room for doubt that it was only on
account of the Full Bench of this Court, thus carving thereins the above said
exceptions, whereas, the dispute which engaged the Full Bench of this Court
in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) related to the subject of regularization of
employees. As such, it became concluded that there could not any inter-
54 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -55-
and other connected cases
mixing or inter-mingling of the contra subjects respectively relating to the
subject of regularization with the subject of equal pay for equal work.
Therefore, on the said carved exceptions in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), the
verdict recorded in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) became quashed and set
aside.
31. Moreover, what yet further constrained the Apex Court, to set
aside the verdict rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh’s
case (supra), rather ensued, as further discernible from paragraph 54.1 of the
verdict recorded by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others versus
Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) qua the Full Bench of this Court while making a
decision in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), though was proceeding to adjudicate
upon the proposition of parity of pay, emerging from the principle of equal
pay for equal work, but since as further apparent on a reading of paragraphs
54.2 of the verdict (supra) recorded by the Apex Court, that since this Court
while making a decision in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), yet merely on the
basis of the length of service rendered by the relevant categories of
employees, thus had proceeded to assign to them parity of pay with those
employees who become appointed against substantive posts. Resultantly,
when the said extension of parity of pay to the various categories of
temporary employees concerned, became embedded upon their respective
lengths of service, whereas, the said assignings of relief by the Full Bench of
this Court, while rendering a decision in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), rather
falling foul of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Daily Rated
Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak
Tar Mazdoor Manch versus Union of India reported in 38(1988) 1 SCC
122. Resultantly, it was in the above event of the impermissible lengths of
55 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -56-
and other connected cases
service, becoming the parameter in assigning to the employees in Avtar
Singh’s case (supra), the benefit of equal pay for equal work, that therebys
the apposite exceptions No. 2 and 3, as occur in Avtar Singh’s case (supra),
thus pointedly led the Apex Court to quash and set aside the decision
recorded by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh’s case (supra).
32. Conspicuously, ex facie therebys the principle of parity of pay
expounded by the Apex Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour’s case (supra),
thus became the apposite underpinnings, thus for the Apex Court in the
verdict (supra), rather discountenancing the hereinabove underlined
exceptions No. 2 and 3, as became carved by the Full Bench of this Court in
Avtar Singh’s case (supra) while assigning to the various categories of
temporary employees, thus the benefit qua theirs becoming entitled to
minimum of the pay scales, as drawable by regular employees, hence, from
their respective dates of their engagements.
33. In summa, the reliance placed by the learned counsels for the
petitioners upon the verdict (supra) rendered by the Apex Court, is a
misplaced reliance thereons. Contrarily, the hereinabove extracted
impugned directions rather become well harbored upon the verdict rendered
by the Apex Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour’s case (supra), as became
also relied upon by the Apex Court in rendering a decision in State of
Punjab and others versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra).
34. The learned counsels for the petitioners have further argued,
that since the Apex Court in para 106 recorded in State of Bihar versus
Bihar Secondary Teachers’s case (supra), has declined to apply the
principle of equal pay for equal work to the employees thereins. Resultantly,
since the verdict (supra) became rendered post the verdict rendered by the
56 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -57-
and other connected cases
Apex Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour’s case (supra), as such, the
verdict (supra) holds the field. However, the reliance placed upon the said
verdict also does not well work vis-a-vis the petitioners. Conspicuously, for
the reason, that since the learned counsel for the petitioners have completely
failed to make any valid onslaught vis-a-vis the inferences which became
drawn in the impugned verdict, as carried in Annexure P-1 appended to
CWP No. 19280 of 2011. The said inferences are re-extracted hereinafter.
“(i) The applicants shall not be replaced by contractual
employees and they shall continue in service till the posts are
filled up on regular basis;
(ii) The official respondents are directed to prepare a
combined (subjectwise) seniority list of contractual lecturers
and they shall be further duty-bound to follow the principle of
‘First come, last go’ in the matter of engagement of laid off
lecturers and also the directions issued by the Coordinate
Benches of this Tribunal in Krishan Kumar’s case and Santosh
Malik’s case (supra). The yearly intake of the contractual
lecturers shall, obviously, be need-based.
(iii) The clauses, in terms and conditions of the appointment
letters issued to the applicants restricting the appointment to a
period of eight months and also denying the salary for the
vacation period to them, are held to be unconstitutional and
are quashed; and
(iv) In view of the categorical law laid down by the learned
Coordinate Bench in KRISHAN KUMAR VS. UNION
TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & OTHERS (supra)
(wherein appropriate sustenance was drawn from the view
obtained by the Apex Court in RATTAN LAL & OTHERS VS.
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. FEMALE WORKERS
(MUSTER ROLL) AND ANOTHER (supra), and also a
Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
57 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -58-
and other connected cases
in the case of RAJ BALA VS. STATE OF HARYANA:
2002(3) RSJ(43), all the contractual lecturers shall be entitled
to minimum of the pay scale of the post, with Dearness
Allowance, as admissible from time to time and also the
maternity leave to the extent indicated in that judgment
(Krishan Kumar’s case). The benefit of maternity leave would
be available to a female contractual employee, with less than
two surviving children. The duration thereof would be the same
as has been recommended by the Vith Central Pay
Commission.”
35. Resultantly, when the respondents are qualified in all respects,
thus to well adorn the respective posts against which they became employed
on a contractual basis, besides when the respondents concerned also
underwent the rigours of selection, as became made by a validly constituted
selection committee. Moreover when the appointments on contractual basis
were made to the posts concerned, only after the said posts becoming
advertised and, necessarily when valid sanctions thereto also become
granted. Contrarily when in verdict (supra), the employee thereins did not
satisfy the parameters as relate to (a) well authorized transparent selections
being made vis-a-vis the substantive posts which became advertised (b) the
selection process, as became engaged into by the recruiting/appointing
authority being a validly engaged into selection process. Moreover, when the
selected thereins employees, did not undergo the process of selection similar
to the ones, as was required to be undergone, upon, appointments being
made of regular employees against the apposite substantive posts. Therefore,
the said distinctivity of process of induction into service respectively of the
teachers in case (supra), and, those who were appointed on regular
basis against substantive posts, but became the prima donna reason
rather for the Apex Court in the verdict (supra), hence for declining
58 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -59-
and other connected cases
to the teachers therein, the espoused parity of pay with the regularly
appointed teachers against substantive posts. However, as stated supra,
when there is complete similarity inter se the process of induction into
service engaged into by the recruiting agency qua the respondents, thus with
the processes earlier engaged, and, to be engaged, thus by the recruiting
agency for making selections of regular Teachers against the apposite
substantive posts. As such, the above inter se distinctivity inter se the facts
in case (supra) and the facts at hand but constrains this Court to not apply
the verdict (supra) vis-a-vis the facts at hand. Contrarily, this Court is led to
apply the mandate recorded by the Apex Court in Daily Rated Casual
Labour’s case (supra), vis-a-vis, the facts at hand. Moreover, the sequel of
the above unchallenged inferences borne in Annexure P-1 are-
(i) Firstly, that the present petitioners rather than behaving
like model employers, to the extent, that despite occurrence of substantive
vacancies whereagainst rather regular appointments or substantive
appointments of the aspirants concerned, thus were to be made. Moreover,
when in the said event the State became obliged to pay them the ordained
pay scales. Contrarily, the State merely for saving the incurring of
expenditure qua the liabilities towards salaries and other incidental
allowances payable to the regularly appointed employees against the
advertised vacancies, which are but substantive vacancies, thus appears to
deploy an exploitative stratagem, rather merely for depriving the
respondents concerned from receiving the salaries and the attendent thereto
allowances appertaining to substantive posts. Resultantly the said
exploitative stratagem deployed by the employer cannot become
countenanced by this Court.
59 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -60-
and other connected cases
(ii) Secondarily for the reason, that if the respondents
concerned, underwent the rigour of an unvitiated selection process, besides
when they are fully qualified to adorn the respective substantive posts,
though on a contractual basis, therebys in terms of the relevant policies for
regularization, thus they are required to be considered to be regularized
against such posts, thus on anvil of lawfully drawn policies. Consequently,
they cannot be ousted through theirs becoming replaced by contractual
employees
(iii) Thirdly, though the Apex Court in State of Punjab and
others versus Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) had denied to the employees
thereins the claimed dearness allowance(s) attaching to the temporary posts
concerned, but it is not clear from a reading of the verdict (supra) recorded
by Apex Court, whether the employees thereins underwent the rigours of an
unvitiated selection process, besides when it is also unclear from a reading
of the verdict (supra) whether the employees thereins were appointed against
validly sanctioned posts. If so, the consequent effect thereof is that, the
apposite denial made by the Apex Court to the employees thereins, but
prima facie becoming banked upon the fact that the engaged thereins
employees, thus became engaged without theirs unlike the employees in the
instant case, undergoing the process of an unvitiated selection process,
besides after an advertisement becoming issued, thus inviting applications
from the aspirants vis-a-vis sanctioned advertised substantive posts.
36. Consequently, the denial of dearness allowance(s) to the
employees concerned, by the Apex Court, but cannot lead to a concomitant
denial to the respondents vis-a-vis their espoused claim for dearness
allowance(s) attaching to the substantive posts being granted to them.
60 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117201-DB
CWP No. 19280 of 2011 (O&M) -61-
and other connected cases
Therefore, the granting of dearness allowances to the respondents, thus for
the reasons (supra) is a well made accordings to them.
37. Lastly, the declaration made by the CAT in Annexure P-3,
appended to CWP-1168-2024, wherebys the respondent thereins became
granted the maternity leave benefits, thus is to be also sustained. The
reasons being that they are well banked upon the earlier unassailed decision
passed by the CAT, besides are well banked upon the recommendations of
the 6th Pay Commission.
Final Order
38. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court does not
find any merit in all the writ petitions (supra), and, is constrained to dismiss
them. Consequently, all the writ petitions (supra) are dismissed. The
impugned verdict(s) passed by the CAT is/are maintained, and, affirmed.
39. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
August 31st, 2024
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
61 of 61
::: Downloaded on – 07-09-2024 09:46:56 :::