IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208(2 cases) Date of Decision: February 24, 2026

1. CWP-9196-2021 Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..Respondents

2. CWP-3878-2020 Sunil Kumar and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Arjun Dev, Advocate for Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-9196-2021.

Ms. Tehermehakdeep, Advocate for Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-3878-2020.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Aakash Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-9196-2021.

Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Mr. Hardeep Singh Poonia and Mr. Mister Ojasvi Taak, Advocates for respondents No.2 & 3 in CWP-9196-2021 and 3878-2020.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-9196-2021.

2. The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby the claim of petitioner and others for grant of equal pay for equal work has been declined on the ground that the petitioner has not been engaged after following the due process and the services rendered by the petitioner cannot be taken at par with the services of regular employees. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner consolidated pay at the initial of the pay scale plus allowances as admissible on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Further for directing the respondents to decide the claim of pay parity of the petitioner along with regular employees as mentioned in representation (Annexure P-7).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the respondent-Nigam had issued an advertisement inviting applications for selection and appointment of 1100 posts of Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant in District Kaithal, Haryana. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the selection process and was appointed as Shift Attendant on contractual basis and joined duties on 01.05.2007. Subsequently, his remuneration was fixed on DC rates with effect from 16.03.2009.

3.1. It is further submitted that vide instructions dated 14.02.2013, the State directed that contractual employees engaged in various departments be paid either 50% of the initial pay (Pay in Pay Band + Grade Pay + DA) of a fresh regular entrant after 01.01.2006 or the wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whichever is higher. The petitioner was being paid DC rates @ Rs.14,560/- per month w.e.f. 01.03.2014. However, pursuant to office order dated 21.07.2014, his monthly remuneration was reduced without issuance of any show cause notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner along with similarly situated persons filed CWP-22428-2014, which was allowed on 13.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) directing the respondents to make payment of salary as per clarification with all consequential benefits within three months. The petitioner continues to work and his contract has been extended from time to time. It is contended that perennial work is being extracted from him at par with regular counterparts. As such, the petitioner is entitled to equal pay for equal work in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.213-2013, titled as State of Punjab Versus Jagjit Singh

3.2. It is further submitted that the employees including the petitioner filed CWP-7596-2017 which was disposed of on 10.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) directing that the petitioners be paid minimum wages with consequential benefits and clarifying that if any employee was receiving higher wages, the same could not be reduced. Non-compliance