112 + 136 (6 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-2820-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Lakhmi Chand and others …Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1744-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Sukhbir Sharma and others …Appellants V/s State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1800-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Surjeet Singh and others …Appellants V/s State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1815-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Balvinder Singh and others …Appellants V/s State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1844-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Balraj Singh and others …Appellants V/s State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1937-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Munshi Ram and others …Appellants V/s State of Haryana and others …Respondents LPA-1941-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Surender Singh and others …Appellants V/s State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

CM-7108-LPA-2025 in LPA-2820-2025 Delay of 17 days in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Cases

1. The controversy raised in this bunch of appeals is similar, therefore, all the appeals are being dealt with together. For convenience, facts are being extracted from LPA-2820-2025.

2. The appellants’ claim for parity in the payment of higher pay- scale at par with the Physical Training Instructors (for short ‘PTIs’) has been rejected by the learned Single Judge after observing that the appellants are not similarly placed as PTIs/(NFCs) or PTIs. The learned Single Judge has also observed that work and duty performed by the appellants cannot be termed to be equal to one performed by PTIs. It has also been observed that teaching Art and Craft and physical training to the students is not one and the same thing. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has observed that the nature of instructions to be imparted to students by the Art and Craft Teachers and PTIs are altogether different.

3. In view of the law otherwise settled that parity in the payment of higher pay-scale can be claimed only by similarly placed persons and such similarity has found to be missing in the facts of the present case, as such, the claim of the appellants has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that all the appellants are placed in Class-C and were governed by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998. Subsequently, new rules came into existence i.e. Haryana School Education (Group-C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 and the Art and Craft Teachers were placed in the similar pay scale and cadre as was the PTIs. It is, therefore, submitted that merely because Art and Craft Teachers perform distinct functions vis-à-vis PTIs, would not be material particularly when the appellants were placed in the same pay-scale and have otherwise higher qualification.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the claim of the appellants on the ground that plea of similarity in the payment of higher pay-scale is dependent upon two set of employees being similarly placed i.e.

they have similar qualifications and similar duties to be performed. It is argued that since the duties performed by an Art and Craft Teacher is distinct from that of a PTI, as such, merely because they are placed in the same pay- scale or cadre, would not be a ground for the appellants to claim higher pay- scale. It is also submitted that grant of benefit to PTIs was otherwise in a different context which has no applicability in the facts of the present case.

6. The learned Single Judge has examine