Sushma And ORS v. District Health & Family Welfare Society Thr Its Chairman-Cum-Deputy Commissioner,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 209-6 Decided on : 23.01.2024 (I) CWP-9979-2017 (O&M) SUSHMA AND ORS . . .PETITIONERS

Versus

DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY THR ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, . . . RESPONDENTS (II) CWP-10413-2017 (O&M) KAMLESH & ORS . . .PETITIONERS

Versus

DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY THR CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JIND& ANR . . . RESPONDENTS (III) CWP-14968-2017 (O&M) BEENA SONI AND ORS . . .PETITIONERS

Versus

DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY THR ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANR . . . RESPONDENTS (IV) CWP-19889-2017 (O&M) RAMPATI AND ORS . . .PETITIONERS

Versus

DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY THR ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HISAR . . . RESPONDENTS (V) CWP-20247-2013 (O&M) GEETA RAM . . .PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

. . . RESPONDENTS (VI) CWP-28221-2017 (O&M) MEHMA DEVI . . .PETITIONER

Versus

DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY AND ANR . . . RESPONDENTS

CWP-9979-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -22024:PHHC:008592

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Laxman Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. R. R. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-28221-2017.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

By this common order, above mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of as all the writ petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present petition, the claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners have not been paid the minimum pay of the regular pay-scale alongwith other allowances keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab & others v. Jagjit Singh, 2016 (4) SCT 641, which is causing prejudice to the petitioners.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners have been appointed under the State Health Mission Scheme and they are being paid as per the provisions of the said Scheme. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 5.

Once, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagjit Singh's case (Supra), an employee is entitled for minimum regular pay-scale for the post in question and the said judgment has already been adopted by the respondent-State while issuing the instructions dated 03. 11.2017, the respondents are under obligation to consider the claim of the petitioners under the said instructions for the grant of entitled pay and pass an appropriate order as to why, keeping in view the said instructions dated 03.11.2017, the petitioners who are discharging the duties on the post on

CWP-9979-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -32024:PHHC:008592 which post incumbents are working on regular basis with the respondentsState, petitioners are not entitled for the grant of minimum of regular payscale. 6.

Let the respondents pass an appropriate order on the consideration of the claim of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of copy of this order under the instructions dated 03.11.2017 and in case, the petitioners are found entitled for the grant of the minimum regular pay-scale, the same be extended to them, otherwise, due reasons for not granting the said benefits to the petitioners be mentioned in the speaking order, for information and further consideration of the petitioners. 7.

Present petitions are disposed of in above terms. 8.

Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.

9.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 23.01.2024 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No