High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/3660/1998dismissed

Dilbagh Singsh v. Managing Committee

2025-04-02Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl23 pages

" #" "# $

' &

& (")* %

$ + +,

, ,- - , - - .

,+/ -,-

+ 0

+ %

' +1+2

+-+113

. & 4

&. $ -1/1

. .

, 4

+112 & 4 .

. (

4 '

4 ( 0

& +/+12/

. 64

" # " "# 4

4 /1+12/ 4

. 8 %

' !& $ (

4 . 4

. 4

. , 0

. :

4#; &

& . 4

. :

4#; (

< ;

!" # $%& '& (!) ) ($ # $%& =*+,- , .%/ % && ,01 (

4 (

- 5

4 (

4 4 &

& ' (

+/+12/ =)>%?

, 4 . %@,- 64

(

& 4 )>%

4 )>% )>%3 4 8 > .

)>%

4 4

# :

. :

4# (

< ;

(!) ) ($ &.% 4

& &

4 :

# 4

(

4 4 & .

, &

(

$ -1/1

)

, (

& .

. 4

. 0 4

& .

4# :

.; . & & 4

. :

4#; ( 4

& +1+123 =)>%+?

)

. .

. $ 8, A 4

)>% ++++123 .

4 4

)

. .

4 ++++123

. $ +8, )>%- 4 4 .

4 -+-+12/ )>% 1+12/

. .

4 /1+12/

. $ +8, 4 '

)>%3 +/-+122 4 4 .

4 & & 4 +2-+122

& 4 4

. 4 4# 4

, & 4

. ' 4

& 3 0 , 4

, 4

.8 %

' !& $

+/+12/ 4 > )>% 6 4 ( &

)>%

, 4

. 64

" # " "# .

+3 4

. 4 4 , . 0 )>%

& & %@,- 64

)>% 0

& & %@,-

4 , "PW3 S. Balwant Singh, Ex Principal, College (illegible) Stated that I have seen Ex P1, P2, P3, P4 in original and

the same have been issued by me. &..2)# $ %)() 2 3 .4

0 2% " $ # 6& / ) # .%') &24 #

%//"% & % $ 6 /3$ )/

%)%/ &)# 3%) )3 6& &..2)# $' )&&# 0 ) %#% $2.

7)2"( ) ($ & & .% ')# !

" $ 3 /.2) & /

$%.23 X X X X X I have seen my signatures on Ex(D7 and the signatures pertaining to 13/5/95 are correct. % .%&) ( "4 $ .2) )

$ )% $2. .%& $ &#4

6& .% ')## "4 / The college continued to provide help to pursue study upto BA.

RO & AC Sd/( ACJ 22/2/96 #89 26 ) ($ (In English)"

%@,- 64

)>%

# 8 4

, .

( )>/ 4

. 64

=)>%?

, . 0 & )>/

4 , "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Certified that Dilbagh singh s/o. Khazan Singh, worked as a Lecturer, purely on adhoc basis for teaching English Subject in Guru Nanak National College Nakodar at intervals from 7(8(1986 to 31(3(1987 and 7(9(1987 to 18(3(1988 at a

consolidated salary which was mutually agreed upon in between Dilbagh Singh on one hand and the College on the other hand and Dilbagh Singh accepted the salary without any protest. At one occassion Dilbagh Singh contacted the under signed and requested the undersigned to issue a Certificate by antidating or pre(dating the certificate for using it in getting a job in some other college and on accepting the request of Dilbagh Singh being a known person and an old student of the college, the undersigned just to favour him issued a letter by pre(dating it to 14(7(1987 in favour Dilbagh Singh but the Managing Committee of G.N.N. College, Nakodar, had never appointed Dilbagh Singh as a full time lecturer. Sd/( (Balwant Singh) Ex.Principal, Guru Nanak National College, Nakodar (Jalandhar)."

/ .

8 #

0 )>%+ %3 4 & .

4 .

4 )>%

(

)>%+ % %

, 4

. )>%+ % .

4 , "Ex.P1 Ref.No.GNNC/P( 7#,:,:1;

$7)2"() ($ S/o Sh.Khazan Singh,

V & P.O. Singhpur, Distt. Jalandhar.

< % $%"4 ..

) # & .% )/ 23%% )

(2)&$ .%24 /.

%%4 "&)& ) $)& 3 22( & 2)## &2%4 &=++89 .% / $ Join duty immediately.

Sd/( Principal Guru Nanak National College NAKODAR (Jalandhar)"

xxx xxx xxx "Ex.P2 Ref.No.GNNC/P( 7#,,,,:1;

$7)2"() ($ S/o Sh.Khazan Singh, V & P.O. Singhpur, Distt. Jalandhar.

You are hereby promoted as full time lecturer in English

.%24 /.

%%4 "&)& 6 ,,,,:1;

3 & 2)## &2%4

&,+++89.& $ & # 24.%/ $ Sd/( Principal Guru Nanak National College NAKODAR (Jalandhar)"

2 )>% )>% .

4 , "Ex.P4 Ref.No.GNNC/AP(6 7#,0-17)2"() ($ S/o S.Khazan Singh,

V & P.O. Singhpur Distt. Jalandhar.

Vide M.C.'s decision dated 14(7(87 you are hereby appointed full time lecturer in English #$ 3 "&)& 6 -:,:1- < 6)22 " .)# 33 %#) ( )'%&)48 " > ' %2& Sd/( Balwant Singh Principal Guru Nanak National College NAKODAR (Jalandhar)"

xxx xxx xxx "Ex.P5 Ref.No.GNNC/101/MC/87(88 7#=:,:1- $7)2"() ($ S/o Sh.Khazan Singh V & P.O. Singhpur, Teh. Nakodar.

Vide M.C.'s decision dated 14(7(1987 you are hereby appointed full time lecturer in English .%24 /.

%%4 #$ "&)& 6 -:1- )22

%$%

%#%& "4 $ #%&)( # < 6)22 " .)# 3 & 2)## &2%4

&,*=+89 .& $ & # 6 $ #%# ) 4 24 .% / $6 $#

) ) ( Sd/( (Resham Singh) Secretary Managing Committee.

Copy to Principal G.N.N. College, Nakodar for information Sd/( (Resham Singh) Secretary."

& 4 4 4

)

4 /1+12/ ( 1+12/ =)>%?

. . 4

. $ +8, 4

+/+12/ =)>%?

. 4 .

.8 %

' !& $ " )>% & )>%+ % 4 .

. 4

(

& /1+12/ & .

, 4 .

. $ +8,

4 )>% 4 4 )>% 4 . 4

, 0

+ '

=)>%? 4 , 4 & %@,- 0

(

++ '

4 & 0

)>%

& 0

1 0

. . 4

. '

. 4 4 .

& & "

4 . ' 4

, 4

4 & & )&

)>%+ )>% 4 )>% (

4 4

( 4

4 4

4 & . 4

4 & . &

' = . & ). ? +1/ (

% (

= ? %

' +1++12+ 4 & 4

& 4 & . +1/ 4

, 4#

. 0

4 (

0 & ,

& 4 &

+ 0 & '

+-+113

( 4 & .

+1+123 -+-+12/ /1+12/ +2-+122 > . ( 4 &

, 4#

+1+123 -+++123 ( 4 &

4 . .

8 > . 4

8 4 4 & . . ' ( 4 &

4 .

)>%+ )>% )>% 4 4 . .

8 ( 4 & & =)>%2? 4 4 .

. ,

4 > . 4

++ 0 + 4

. &, &

& $ , 4 . 5

4 4

4 4 4

4 4

( 4

> > .

4 & .

4 &

& &

( 4 &

8 4

. 4 4 4 . . 5

4 + &,

& + . ( &

4 .

0 & '

(

4 , "He only worked as part time lecturer or Lecturer on ad( hoc basis upto 17.3.88 He claimed difference of salary up to 17.3.88 from the date of his original appointment. He could at the most, file a suit within a period of three years, for the recovery of the amount of difference of the salary as and when the same allegedly became due to him. $ &) 6& )2#

*??:*33 %#) (24$&)6&.2."24"%%#"4)/ xxx xxx xxx Ext. P14 is a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme court. $ 3 %%3 ) %.%)

$)& %#% )& $ $ .2) )

2# )2 &)

% %3 '%4 24 ) $ &/ 6&

$%6)& /) ) "2 #% $ .% ')&) &

26 ) ) 6&

6)$) 2)/)) $ 6 %#& ) & #')&# 6%) "4 $

"2 .%/ 3 % ) $ %#% 3 .4 6$%

)& 5 ,0 32%24 / $ ) $ &) 6& $%6)& /) ) "2 % 6& 6)$) 2)/)) $ #')&# "4 $ 264%

)2 $ &/ xxx xxx xxx Ext. P10 is the copy of the order dated 18.3.91, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court on the special leave Petition filed by the plaintiff/appellant. The special Leave Petition was dismissed. It was, however, mentioned in the said order that if the petitioner had any claim of salary for the period for which she had worked, the same shall be considered by the respondent, and disposed of according to law. The plaintiff claimed that as per the order dated 18.3.91, he filed a representation, before the authorities concerned, which was dismissed and thereafter he filed a suit in July, 1992, and as such the same was within limitation. In the order datad 18.3.91, the Hon'ble Supreme court clearly held that only if he had any claim of salary for the period for which he worked, the same shall be considered. This direction or observation made by the Supreme court in the order dated 18.3.91, did not extend the period of limitation, for filling a suit for recovery. $ .%) #

2)/))

% )22) ( &)

% %3 '%4 3 // 3# $ / / $ &2%4 ) .%)32% &32 22(#24 "3 / # $ .2) )

" $ 6& .)# $ 2&&% %

%.%& ) /# "4 $ .2) )

6$)3$ 6& .% ')## #% $ & 3 2# ( 5 # $ %/2 .%) #

2)/))

% )2) ( &). Since, the period of limitation, had already expired for filing a suit for recovery, under the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme court, made in order dated 18.3.91, no protection could be sought by the plaintiff for the extension of period of limitation.

xxx xxx xxx &3$ ) %.%) )& ()' $ '%4 /.2 4 6)22 (

)2) ( %.%& ) & $% ($ & %)24 .% ')## "

% $ $ %))& 3 3% # %/224 $ #)&.

$ & %.%& ) & 6 2# @ &

)3) )/ # ) $ & %.%& ) & 6% #)&.

% $ 2.&

/"%

4%& $ /.2 4 6 2# 32)/ $ 5 ) 2)/)) .% ')## #% $ 2)/)) 3 $ (% # $ $)& %.%& ) 6& %!3# ) 224 "4 $ #.%/ .%)32% # $ 6 2# ( # # $ .% ')&) &

$ 2)/)) 3 # &) ) $ ' 6)22 "3 / "%%#"4)/A

0 &

(

+- 0

. &

8 4

4 .

& 4

5 .

. 5 .

. ( 4 & . 8

& 4

-+-+12/ =)>%-? 4

& .

8 )&

4 . .

. (

( 4

8 &

. ' 4

& 0 =)>%?

4 "

)>%+ )>% )>% &

. + $ '

< B

(!) ) ($ &.% :

. :

8 %

3 '

4 , "42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, #% $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them were against the same post for which a higher pay(scale was being allowed in other government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale.

Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was invoked and considered, ) 6 2# " !& # ..% .%) #2) $ .%/%& 2)# # 6 "4 $)& % %3 %#) ( $ &)# .%/%& 6 $' 2& #'%# & / $% !#(/ & .%) ) ( /.

%%4 /.2 4& 2& #2 6)$ ) $ ) & !#(/ 6$%) 2& $)& % $# $ 33&) 5.%&& $ 2(2 .

&)) 6)$ % % 3 $ .%) 3).2

BDC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A % 3 &)#%) $& 2# & $

6) ( ##3) & 42.1.

$ B &

.%)4 ) $ #)& # %&.

&)")2))&

$ &"!3 .

& 6)$ $ % % 3 .

& #% $

.%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A 2)& $ .%& 6$ 32)/& ) 6$ ..% 3$& $ % $& &"2)&$ $ $ &"!3 .

33.)# "4 $)/ %C)%& $)/ #)&3$%( C2 6 %@

C2 '2 & $ % % 3 .

& & %)&& )'%&)4

(%)32% E 3$ (4 3& $ #)(%$ #/ ' ! $% 3& # ) 22/) / #3& 42.2.

The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a "different department" vis(a(vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case and D.S. Nakara case).

42.3.

The principle of "equal pay for equal work", applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case). F % C2 .4 $ /.2 4& 3% # 6)$ 6$ / C) )& & ($ &$ 2# " .%

%/) ( 6 %@ 6$)3$ "&)#& ") ( 3) 224 C2 &$ 2# "

$ &/ C2)4 # & &))')4 & F#%)

22 #) & /& # %2

53)& (%.$%& 3& $ 6 / !) 3& >%)$ 24 #%G %@%&H ) 3& #$ #%3&.

42.4.

%& & $ 2#) ( $ &/ % @8#&)( ) ) #)

% #.%/ & " $') ( #)&&)/)2% .

6%& #)& # %&.

&)")2))& 3 " .23# ) #)

% &32&

.4 # 3 32)/ $ " )

$ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A & #$)% ) ($ 3&

%4 ' %4 )')2 3%%) %& 2

&& # $ @/ $ # >. 3& $%

% $ .%) 3).2 6 2# " /)3224 ) '

@# /%24 "3& $ &"!3 # % % 3 .

&& $'$&/ / 32% 42.5.

#%/) ) ( C2)4

3) & # %&.

&)")2))& #% $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A ) )& 3&&%4

@. ) /) # $ $ #)&

$ 6 .

&& &$ 2# "

C2 & &))')4 # 2& C2))'24 &)/)2% 7)

% ))

.4 &32&

% .

&& 6)$ #)

% 3 ) #(%

%&.

&)")2)4 %2)")2)4 #

)# )2)4 6 2# 22 6)$) $ %2/

'2)# 32&&) )3) # $%

% .4 #)

% )) 2# " 2())/ # .%/)&&)"2 &

F#%)

22 #) & /& # %2 53)& (%.$%& 3& # 3& $ %

$ &"!3 .

& &$ 2# " $ &/ # 2&& % & $ $ % % 3 .

& ' $ '

%@ &$ 2# " $ &/ # & 2& $ 2'2

%&.

&)")2)4

$& .%/%& % / .%)4 3 " 32)/# #% $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A &

' $%&) #>%)$24 #%G %@%&H ) 3& 42.6.

% .23/ ) %(2% .49&32 $ 32)/ $& " %(2% ..

) $ 32)/ &$ 2# $' " &23#

$ "&)&

%(2% .% 3&&

%3%)/ /.2 4 ..

) #

%%4 "&)& 3 32)/ " .23# ) $ %(2% .4 &32 &%)&& )'%&)4

(%)32%E3$ (43& 42.7.

%& & .%

%/) ( $ &/ % &)/)2% 3) & #)& # %&.

&)")2))& 3 2& " .23# ) #)

% .4 &32& 3$ & IB&23) (%#A ) $ &/ .

&. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as - merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia). 42.8.

$ C2) )3) &

% %3%)/ $ &"!3 .

& ')&99 ')& $ % % 3 .

& % #)

% ) /4 " #)

)32 32# $ $ #)& # %&.

&)")2))&

$ .

&& % C2))'24 &)/)2%

% 3 /.%"2 & 6 / !) 3&

G ' % 4 &3$ 3& $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A 3 ") '

@# 42.9.

The reference post with which parity is claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", has to be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post. Pay(scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey and Hukum Chand Gupta case).

42.10.

A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be made where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the

establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case).

%& & ((# #)

% 24 # ") ( .)#

% #& 6 2# " )2# .4 .%)4&

)3)2 )C)# %'74 # 42.11.

% .49&32& ) 3%) ' 2))& 6 2# " .%/)&&)"2 '

% .

&& 32""# ($% $ &/ $)%%3$4 ) $ 3#% &

% ) & 3 ) $ #)& # %&.

&)")2))&

$ .

&& % / % % & % % 5.

&# $)($% %

.%) 2 %@8%)&@ $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A 6 2# " ..2)3"2 # 2&

6$ $ % % 3 .

& ) 32#& $ %&.

&)")2)4 @ 3%3)2 #3)&) & # $ )& &

% $ &"!3 .

&& 3& 42.12.

The priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.). 42.13.

The parity in pay, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A )& ..2)3"2 24 6$ ) )& &$ 6 $ $ ) 3/" &

$ &"!3 .

& # $ % % 3 .

& #)&3$%( &)/)2% #)& # %&.

&)")2))& &

G ') )//G(& &.3 %&&& 42.14.

% .%)4 ) .49&32& #% $ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A C) ) $ %

#)& )&

.%/ )/.

% 3 If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non(teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see UT Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur).

42.15.

$% 3 " '2)# 32&&) )3) ) $ /%

&32& "6 /.2 4& ' $ 2#) ( .

&& 6)$ $ &/

/ 32% ) "6 $ & #)&3$%() ( #)& $ $#C%%& # $%& 6 %@) ( $ ) &)) 28&"9

)3 2'2 & @/ $ #>.3&6$ $#)&%C2))'24#)&&)/)2% 42.16.

The principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay(scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand Gupta case). 42.17.

Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations is with different entities which are independent of one another, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply (see S.C. Chandra case and National Aluminum Co. Ltd. case).

xxx xxx xxx 60.

') ( %'%&# $ 2(2 .%/%& 6)$ % % 3

$ ..2)3)

$ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A ) %2)

%%4 /.2 4& #)2496( /.2 4& #9$ ..

) & /.2 4& ..

) # 3&2 "&)& %32 /.2 4& # $ 2)@ $ & 2 3 % $ %C)%& % #%/) )

)& 6$$% $ 3 3% # /.2 4& "

% $)& % 6% % #%) ( &)/)2% #)& # %&.

&)")2))& & 6% ") ( #)&3$%(# "4 %(2% /.2 4& $ 2#) ( $ &/83 %%&.

#) ( .

&& $)& 5%3)& 6 2# %C)% $ ..2)3)

$ .%/%&

$ .%) 3).2

BC2 .4

% C2 6 %@A &//%)&# "4 & ) .% 0* "

' 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 summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove.

There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post."

& 4 4 < B

4# 0 4

' 4 4

' . :

4# :

& 4# 4 :

. :

& . ( 4

4 .

. . 4 &

. ( 4 &

. :

4# >

4 4

# 4 4 &

+ (

4 4

# .

4 4

# . 5 (

4# :

& .

. . . "

& .

8 & &

C .

+3 =

. :

4# (

. )>%

. 4 &

8 & 0

< B

. 4 + +3 (

+1+123 -+++123

. 4 D E 0 < B

D )

#) # $%& & 2/

7') # $% %.

%# & *+*,*+ *:+ & . 4

# F

. 4 . &

4# +/ G

& 4 &,

4 +

4 4 &

#$ % &

'()* +

!, Davinder Kumar/Naresh @ #

8 H 8" @ H 8"