IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
Om Parkash – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 2364 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the facts surrounding the petitioner's promotion and pay scale issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding equal pay and qualifications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on equal pay for equal work. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's final ruling on the petition. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.3 whereby claim of the petitioner with regard to granting him the pay scale of the Electrician w.e.f. 10.07.1998 has been denied, while alleging that the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2014 passed in CWP No.7556 of 2009 titled as Om Parkash v. The State of Haryana and others has completely been overlooked.
2. In brief, facts are that the petitioner, being Class IV employee of respondent No.3 and having qualification of 10+2 with 'A' Class Wireman Certificate, applied for promotion to the post of Electrician in pursuance to letter dated 08.06.1995 issued by respondent No.3 for filling up the post of Electrician from amongst Class IV employees. The qualification for the said post was prescribed as Matric with ITI Certificate in Electric Trade or equivalent. Vide order dated 10.07.1998, petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrician in the scale of Rs.950-1500 purely on ad hoc basis, subject to the condition that he will give an undertaking that he will not claim any right to the post of Electrician. On 08.12.2008, promotion of the petitioner stood regularized. The petitioner made representations dated 05.07.1999 and 02.02.2008 to respondent No.3 to grant him pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- as was admissible to the post of Electrician w.e.f. 10.07.1998. In pursuance to representations made by the petitioner, an agenda item was put before the Board of Directors that actual pay scale for the post of Electrician is Rs.4000-6000/- and therefore, once the said scale is being given to similar employees of other Boards/Corporations, then same ought to be given to the petitioner. The said proposal was further sent to the Government for approval, however, the same was rejected. Respondent No.3 again wrote a letter dated 25.11.2008 to respondent No.2 for grant of aforesaid scale to the petitioner but the same stood rejected. Aggrieved against the said action of respondents, petitioner filed CWP No.7556 of 2009 before this Court for granting him pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- as admissible to the post of Electrician instead of Rs.3050-4500/-, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 02.05.2014 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner, in view of the finding rendered in the judgment passed by this Court. In pursuance of the judgment passed by this Court, respondents considered the case of the petitioner and passed order dated 13.01.2015 denying him the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, which is subject of challenge in the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that while passing the impugned order dated 13.01.2015, respondents have relied upon the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical & Non-Technical Posts) Act, 2014, however, the said Act and the instructions referred therein as well as the scale were never implemented in his case and therefore, withdrawal of said instructions has no consequence. In fact, the petitioner is praying for grant of pay scale as admissible to the post of Electrician i.e. Rs.4000-6000/-, as is being given to the persons working on the post of Electrician in other Boards/Corporations. The petitioner is performing similar duties and responsibilities and therefore, he is entitled to the said scale on the basis of Equal Pay for Equal Work. It was further argued that case of the petitioner was rejected on a frivolous ground that the petitioner does not possess ITI diploma, as respondents granted him promotion
Deb Narayan Shyam v. State of West Bengal
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (1989) 2 SCC 235
State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya (1993) 1 SCC 539 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 221 : (1993) 23 ATC 657
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh (2006) 9 SCC 82
The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' requires consideration of educational qualifications and responsibilities, and cannot be applied if qualifications differ.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
Direct appointees entitled to pay parity with transferred employees and departmental counterparts performing identical duties, as unequal pay scales violate Articles 14/16; courts rectify arbitrary a....
Employer's right to restructure cadre and rationalize pay scales, and the obligation to rectify pay anomalies caused by promotions.
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that employees performing similar duties be compensated equally, regardless of title discrepancies.
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.