SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(P&H) 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Surinder Kumar and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
CWP-2972-2026
Decided On : 03-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, D.A.G.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioners for rectification of anomaly in the pay scale of Drivers vis-a-vis Clerks/Patwaris and for grant of pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the petitioners the pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- at par with Clerks/Patwaris w.e.f. 01.12.2011 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary/pension with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioners are retired employees of the respondent-department, who served on the post of Driver during their service tenure. Since 1986, the post of Driver was always placed in a higher pay scale than posts such as Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks. However, in the mid-term pay revision implemented w.e.f. 01.12.2011 (Annexures P-2 & P-3), the State Government revised the pay scales of Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks to Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/-, while excluding the post of Driver in the said pay revision and resultantly, the posts junior to Drivers were placed in a higher pay band. Aggrieved by the said pay anomaly, the petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP No.12548 of 2019 (Surinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure P-5), with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 27.01.2019 (Annexure P-4), submitted by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent- department passed a speaking order dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioners for removing the pay anomaly in the pay scale of Drivers vis-a-vis Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks and for grant of pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- has been rejected solely on the ground that the judgment passed in CWP-7920-2013 titled as ‘Manmohan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 01.02.2018 relied upon by the petitioners had been stayed in LPA No.449 of 2019 titled as ‘State of Punjab and others Vs. Manmohan Singh and others’. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before 01.12.2011, the post of Driver was always placed in a higher pay scale than posts of Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks, however, the State Government, vide its mid-term pay revision implemented w.e.f. 01.12.2011 (Annexures P-2 & P-3), revised the pay scales of Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks to Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/-, while arbitrarily excluded the post of Drivers, without assigning any reason and as such they created pay anomaly in the pay scale of Drivers vis-a-vis, Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks. He further submits that the respondent-department, vide impugned order dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-6), wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners without examining the merits of the petitioners claim or the legality of the anomaly itself. He further submits that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 23.03.2020, 6th Punjab Pay Commission Report was published and implemented by the State Government, vide notification dated 05.07.2011 (Annexure P-7) and Pay Commission, in Chapter 5, categorically held that the mid term re-revision of 2011 was discriminatory, arbitrary and lacked transparency.

4. On receipt of advance copy of the petition, learned State counsel submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the clai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top