Kamal Kumar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"
# $%&%!'
( ( ) + ),* -
'# ! . -& (((((( % %!' -& / -&,&
!"
,'1
'# ! . -&
(((((( &3!'# ' & 4
56 4( 0)
!"
" # $ %
&&&& ) 7 (
8- +9
'(
(
) *(
) +!( $,,-
* ) ( (.
.)* *( *
* ( /0 0
!"
,'1
'# ! . -& /&( :1% 0%':.
'# ! . -& ;89 0 ( 1 *
* .
#
# !
) # -
* ,$ ,2 $,,, '**! # !
,- ,2 -334 * 0* # % 5 ,- -, $,,, # ) ,- ,7 $,,, 80*9 8:*9
# " ) -- ,2 $,,, ; # ") ,- -- $,,- 0
< * = *( *
* :1% 0%':.<& & 8&,39 0 )
()*
) * *(
/ * * )) )
*
**)* ( ) %
" )
!0 > )
*
* :% 0%':.<& & 8&,39 ( * ( * ***
? * ))
:
? * * $,( )
? ( * ( **( 89 >
*
/ @ (AB
1 0 0 &.
'
),* -
'#
'! . - /&(
!"
,'1
'# ! . -&7 !(=;= !"
# $%# # !'
( (
* .
D3.
The question as to whether the employees held to be entitled for minimum pay-scale would be entitled for dearness allowance or not is no more res integra and the same came up for consideration before the Apex Court that too in contempt proceedings wherein it was held as under :
"2. The instant Contempt Petitions arise out of the Order dated 10.01.2018 passed by this Court disposing of Special Leave Petition preferred by the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, PWD Public Health & Others, in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148.
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.699700 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."
5. It is a matter of record that so far as the basic pay is concerned, the contempt petitioners have been paid the requisite amounts. However, it is submitted that the amounts towards Dearness Allowance as was accepted by this Court in its order dated 04.05.2016 have not been made over to the contempt petitioners.
6. We see force in the submissions made on behalf of the contempt petitioners.
7. It is, therefore, directed that the amounts payable to all the contempt petitioners towards Dearness Allowance shall be made over to them within six weeks from today."
4.
To add a reason thereto, I may hastenly observe here that Dearness Allowance cannot be divorced to the salary as is being done by the respondent for the simple reason that the Dearness Allowance is paid to the employees commensurating to the inflation index with an object to take care of increasing cost of living and thus cannot be denied by the authority. I am guided by the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. vs. Its Workmen (1969) 2 SCR 113, wherein it has been held as under :- D' * * * **
*
0* () * *
-4 ?0*
.
E>
* )
/ ( * * * *
(
*) * * *) (
** E -3 ? %'#,& .
'
%* & & 7 8 =9 0 $6C8 0F9.
E
8-37$9$<
< %2$ 809 *
) *
=
*)* *(
*) * *)
** *) E $, ?
! "
#$%& ) 8-37$.$<
< %2$809
: 0 0 G 8-37%9 $ 0F -7 0 *
/
)
(..) %74 8 0F9.
E1 * ) *() (..) * /)
) *1 *** ( ( * * ) ) () (H ( =
( = *
) *) **( /
* *( ' * ) ** ) (..) *
* *( * * : 0 0 G 8-37%9 $ 0F-7
* *( E) %C68 0F9 .
E1 *())
) * )
(
) * (.
E $- ?'
() *
+'
;
, ( '
#%&- ()) )
)*) (
= * *
(
*
*
) * *( * *(
*( **
$$ ?. ) '
! "
#%$& . *
*
*** *
*** . *
$% 1 ** ) * *( )
- :** * * ) / (* * *(
1
) * *)* *( *) * *) ** *)
% 1
/
)
(..)
I *())
)* )
( ) * (
1 * *
)
* *(
*( ( * *
J 5.
In view of above once the authority has
decided to grant minimum pay scale attached to the post and is paying dearness allowance to its employees, the same cannot be denied to the petitioners.
6.
Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed.
7.
Respondents are directed to pay the salary to the petitioners at the rate of minimum pay-scale attached to the post of Beldar on which they are working along with Dearness Allowance at the rate being paid to other employees."
?
F ( ( K
( * (
) *)
K ) *( 1 %4 *)
; )*(
8) 9 ( ( Dinesh >
)L ML# >F
* ML#