IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
Didar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 4625 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Aman Chaudhary, J.
The above-mentioned three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these involve a similar issue.
2. The prayer made is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to step up the pay of the petitioners at par with their junior, who being in reserved category, have been promoted. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP-4625-2016.
3. The petitioner, who belongs to the General Category, was appointed as Clerk on regular basis on 08.02.1977 and during the interregnum, one Harnek Singh, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, appointed as Clerk on regular basis on 09.02.1977, was granted accelerated promotion to the post of Junior Auditor on 19.05.1982, on account of which, his pay became higher. The petitioner, who was subsequently promoted, after the gap of 7 years on 01.04.1989, regained his seniority and was promoted as Superintendent Gr.-II vide order dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P1). The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Superintendent Gr.-I vide order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P2), while Harnek Singh was promoted to the said post on 14.10.2011 and in the seniority list of Superintendent Gr.-I dated 16.02.2015, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.4, whereas Harnek Singh at Sr. No.14. Be that as it may, petitioner's pay was still lesser than Harnek Singh, as in January, 2015, his basic pay being Rs. 30,000/- and that of Harnek Singh Rs. 34,000/-. The principle that in the eventuality of pay of the junior is higher than the senior, it has to be stepped up.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the issue, as involved in the present petitions, has already been dealt with and decided by this Court vide judgments dated 18.11.2008, CWP-5956-2008, titled as Charan Dass v. State of Haryana, Annexure P-4 and 07.08.2012, CWP-17280-2011, Prem Kumar Verma and others v. State of Haryana, Annexure P-5 and 06.12.2012, CWP-18307-2011, Gurmeet Singh and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, Annexure P6. They thus pray that the instant petitions may be disposed of in the same terms. The relevant portion of Charan Dass (supra), reads thus:-
AI
The court established that a senior employee's pay must be stepped up to match that of a junior if the latter's pay exceeds the former's, ensuring equality and preventing discrimination.
Seniors are entitled to stepping up of pay to match juniors when an anomaly arises due to pay fixation schemes, as established by precedent.
A senior general category employee reaching the same post as a junior from a reserved category is entitled to equal pay, reaffirming fairness and equality mandates under Articles 14 and 16 of the Con....
The court established that the petitioner cannot claim stepping up of pay under Fundamental Rule 27(2) due to the anomaly in pay arising from the junior being promoted to a different post and thereaf....
Entitlement of a senior employee to stepping up of pay equal to that of a junior employee, conditions for stepping up of pay, and the applicability of various judgments related to equal pay for equal....
Seniors entitled to pay stepping up if juniors draw higher pay due to extra promotion fixation, irrespective of cause.
The principle that a senior employee cannot receive less pay than a junior is upheld, prompting the court to direct equal pay adjustments based on established seniority and promotion timelines.
Equal pay for equal work must consider seniority, qualifications, and nature of work, establishing that discrimination against meritorious employees is unconstitutional.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.