High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/7/2025allowed

Shiv Shankar And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

2026-03-06Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil10 pages

## "

$ %&$

'' $ &

!"# $%&'

"*)&# $%&'

+& ), !&

)* %!-)# $$ #. //// '()$*+,- . /(,0 )!&$) $!,&&+0&%1!$ (&, !&!* !%& %$!0& ) ), !&!23!++'

&+ )' "+&2 451617

/(1/ .! ), , !&!+&8*)!- )&$$ $ 69 :*1%!$()!') )0+!

&+2!!2*2' &- (!

)$ &('( &,,$$$!'

!&(!*$ &'&%

0+!

&+ $ &(' $. - $ & ) , !& (+ 6

), !&(,,&! $! ).70. )&,!

-!;

!&#.# &(&"! )' &+.3)( )&*-) $* .'& $ '

!&'&22!

),! *&+ )! (&"# ).('& !*$ )&*-)&* &*'!--'. ).9#

)&%2 $'!$$ "&% )!%!'$!'

.+&2 )$ &+

)!!!

! ,,&! 2 #0* )!$'!!&((!

)$(! ).7# % !- )2 &&* &*'!- --!%$# ), !&,,&')$ )!-) 4&* # $!- &'&!$ !&&+ )!'#$! ).< ).(

"& )& &+ )$, 2 (!

) &,'

!%++'

+&27=9 *$ )&* &*'!-,& !'. > ** ),& !'.$'!!&$ $>6$?*$!'!

,&&*'2 # ), !&0'2 $ &2!!2*2,.' .9# )4&* &($ )!' !2$$!'

$- &+2!!2*2' (!

)+&26#()!')(!2, 2 $ &-(!

)$ &('&(%#*08* .# )$ &('((!

)$(!

'209(!

)&$+&'&%.# $!- )+! !-&+ ),

, !& 223 9 @$!&'&* +& ), !&(&* $'& $

$ &('!, &+0!',.$$ &0'&!$$ - !-) #()!')'& 0$!$ ), !&(!

)! )+&*'&&+

,!'!, &+A8* ,.+&8* (&"B &+ )?*$-2 &+

!%!!&3')&+ )!4&* !

!"#$$%&#&%&'( $'!$$ & 97$0*')&+& ),, 7 @$

'&* *02!

$ &(')0 $!$ ), !&& . .!-& )

$ $>6()0.

$'!!&( " &,, . ),!'!, &+8* ,.+&8* (&"! ,'

)2, &.--$*$* &*'!-& !'. &+ &%2 (+6# ! )'

-&. &()!') ), !& 0 &-$ )+&#$ &(')0$!$& )!,2! @$

'&* (&* $ )&*-)$+$&0) +&+ )

*-!-

! ),& !'.$ $>6''&$!- )4 *! )'& '

* ,.

&+*')2, &. !" ), !&) 0 $ )2!!2*2,.

' &+ )'

-&! &()!') ).0 &-0* (&* $& 0 $ &.&+

) &('

')$ ),& $''&$!- .#& - $ )0+!

&+$ &(' = $ $'&* +& ), !$,*$ ) %

! %! 0 &'&$ (,133 6

)&* # )'& &%.!& &&+2'& '

! ,

!&#0* &+'& !& +!$ !

#)%!-'&'!&* .

$$ ), !& )2!!2*2&+ ),.'

')$ ),& !8* !&#'& #! )20 )# *'

! - '&2,&

%.,. *'

*0.!%&"!-:'* !% !,* !&)!*# )+&#

2* 0 $& )%! &+ !' 9$=&+ )4& !&#$(!

)

$$&'

!&+8* ,.+&8* (&" C !&( !

),!'!, &+A8* ,.+&8* (&"B! & 0 '

2& ' !2 0* '& !& -* + &(!- +&2 !' 9$=&+ )4& !&#'&! .++!2$!

)

$*+& $(,,-$+$*08* .'. !$! ! .

/ &%$0($,,$'+/ 1 (#

) *,2 4&* * )&!

!% . ) $ &' 2, &.# % !+

2,&. & '& '

* # $!')- $* ! !$ !' & )& &+ -* 2, &.#$! &+,.,!

.# ):

&+2!!2*2&+ ),.

' (&* $0!2,2!!0 ) % :

)2!) *$

55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

57. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of `equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily*wage employees, ad*hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of `equal pay for equal work' summarised by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position.

We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time.

There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent*employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarised by us in paragraph 42 herein above.

doubt, that the principle of `equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay*scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.

58. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay*scale (*at the lowest grade, in the regular pay*scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.

< )

2, & % $ &(' +&2 2!!2*2,.' ,&'$&+*$2 .+ ($,2! &('!& $!' !&.&,!,) &('"! &)&* &

% &('0* !! !!' . !"$ )'&', &+(-,& '

!& -! !+ !&$+&2'&2,& ),. *'

+)'&* )%'&-!$ $ &('!2')!2 &* ! &!&&+ (-$'& 0 !+!'! .$ ')$+&2 )0!',.

+2(&"(),!

.!& )(!- $ ' )

$$ )0+!

)2!!2*2,.

' # !

!2, !'!

. $&, ) ,. ')!

')$ & ) ,& ) -*2 '& '

* 2, &. $& . )"bare minimum"

&+ )' 0* & &!

'.$?*'

!! .!'&! ) 2!!2*2,.' !& *2!' 0 '

!&#!

! *'

*$'&',

'&2,!!-0!',. &- )(!

)*')'&2,& !,0 . !"$

&- &()! $.!- )& )! &' *'

$$ - .

** !0 ' !+!'

!&*!$'2.0$(+&2

/1 2

&%&&,,3 1 4, $%00# ) % :

)2!,&$*'$*$

3. Paragraph 55 of the decision in Jagjit Singh (supra) was to the following effect:

"55. In view of all our above conclusions, the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , dated 11*11*2011, is liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby set aside. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 125] is also liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set aside. We affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar [State of Punjab v. Rajinder Kumar, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 13009], with the modification that the employees concerned would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts held by them."

4. Notably, the expression "pay" was considered by this Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.699*700 of 2015, Tej Singh and Others v. Sarvesh Kaushal and Ors., arising out of decision dated 11.12.2015 in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Wel. Asso. v. State of H.P. & Others and connected matters, Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2015 Etc. In its order dated 04.05.2016 passed in said Contempt Petitions, this Court observed:

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the expression "minimum of the pay" mentioned in paragraph 22 is intended to mean not only the basic pay + grade pay, but also the dearness allowance that comes along with the basic pay and grade pay. This is in the context of the view expressed by this Court denying regular appointments to the petitioners, while taking into consideration the fact that the services of the Home Guards are used during an emergency and for other purposes and at the time of their duty they are empowered with the power of police personnel. Accordingly, we make it clear that the word "minimum of the pay" used in paragraph 22 of the judgment and order dated 11th

March, 2015 means the basic pay + grade pay + dearness allowances + washing allowance."

) !%!!&3')?*$-2 )!4&* !

!"#$$%&#&%&'(

&& %'

&%&5 +* ) !+&' )! ,&!

!&# ()! ),!'!, &+,!

.(& $!&(&,$ !'2 0* ! ,*,&!% # *!- 2, &. & $,!%$ &+ -!

!2 '&2,& &+,.*$ )-*!&+'& '

* ' !+!'

!& ) !', '$0. )

& )'&22*!'

!&$ $ >6$&& $%'!

'! .# )!$'&22*!'

!&!#! *0 '#:'* !%! *'

!&$&

&.* +2$*$.

0 !-,&%!!& !(

$ :'* !%! *'

!&'& &%!$ '& !& 2$ & ?*$!'! . '&-!$ !-) '&$ .# % ,& !'.$'!!&2* !+. ) &+&10!

!$' !+!'

!& ()!')- )2!!2*2,.' 0* $! ! '&2,&

' #(!

)&* .! !-!0 $!++ !)%!- !& :* )&0?'

&*-) &0')!%$#+ +&* &+ )8* !

.' * > ) '& !& '& '

* 2, &. # 0. $+!!

!&# $! $ & &(' &$&& (!

) $'* !.)*,24&*

!/ 1 (:, .?'

$*')!-!$$! !'

!&#)& $!-

) *&+2, &.2 1 2,&.#'& '

* #&'* '& 0*$ $%!' &$.0+!

+ &(+&2 ) *&+$* !,+&2$5)

! $ 2! !% ! ) (&" ,+&2$# & ) 0

')$ & 2, &.2

9 8* . * 0 ! ) $!'

!& +& '&%. &+ $ &(' $.,!$) (&'&%.+&22, &.#, !'* .

(),.2 )%02$(!

)&* 2!,

!&&+*$# $

$0. )*,24&* ! ! .

67&%$5 '(,, 88' )0'

-&!' .) $ '&%!+&22, &.!*') '!'*2 '!2,2!!0 #,'! .() ).(&* $* !*$* )$)!,), !&#)%!-'!%$ )0+!

!-&&$+!

)$! ,**'&+ )

D&($'!!&#'& &(0*0?'

$ &'&%.&

)0!&+*08* ! ,

!& 7 !($ )*# )

!&!$.!-$ &(' ()! !2* &* . - !- ) 2!!2*2 ,. ' * ! '& !& !'&-*!

. ' ' &+ 2, &. ()& ,+&2 !$ !' $* !#'!%& !0 . )2,.' #. $,!%$&+ ! '&2,& ' &* '&2 !2!+ .0!

.$ %!& !%&+ !' 9$=&+ )4& !&&+$! 9 *2# )!2,*-$&$$ $69 :*1 *+++&2$* !+!2!

2!'& * ) - ')'

&+$ &('&2 )!-%0 +&2 )2!!2*2,.' )*# $! &+ $ &('# $ ) '&8* ! '&%. '& 0 * !$! ( = %!(&+ )0&%&0% !&# )!2,*-$&$ $ 8*)$$ ), , !& $ &($ )'&%.#!+.# ++'

$+&2 ), !&) 0+*$$0'" )2 &-(!

E=F,*2+&2 )$ !

('&%$ ! )$ &+!

! !& 6 $!-,, !'

!&#!+.#) & $$!,&$&+ C )& &'&,.&+ )!&$0, '$& )+! &+'&'

.' $ &0

*$) 5) ),"!-G&1,"!-H G & 5) ),& 0 H G &