IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-10084-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 20.07.2026 Bhoopinder and others … PeƟƟoners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: None for the peƟƟoners. Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoners for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcƟng the respondents to pay the peƟƟoners the minimum of the basic pay of the post of their category at par with the permanent employees working on the same posts, on which the peƟƟoners are appointed and do the same nature of work, on the basis of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' under ArƟcle 39(d) of the ConsƟtuƟon of India." 2. Order Sheet indicates that on the last three dates of hearing, the same being 02.09.2024, 18.02.2025 and 29.07.2025, none has appeared on behalf of the peƟƟoners. Vide order dated 29.10.2022, Ɵme had been granted to the peƟƟoners to file a replicaƟon. Office report indicates that no replicaƟon has been filed Ɵll date. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-10084-2019 (O&M) - 2 - 3. Taking into account the above-noted facts, it is clear that neither the peƟƟoners nor their counsel are interested in seriously pursuing the present liƟgaƟon. Accordingly, the maƩer being of the year 2019, is being heard and decided in their absence. 4. A perusal of the case file reveals that it is the pleaded case of the peƟƟoners that they were appointed on contract basis between the years 2011 to 2014 on Group D posts in the HorƟculture Circle, Haryana. The peƟƟoners have been working conƟnuously for more than 10 to 18 years. PeƟƟoners were geƫng salary @ of ₹ 13,400/- per month. It has been pleaded that Group D employees are geƫng basic pay of ₹16,900/- plus HRA ₹1,500/- plus DA 9% plus medical ₹1,000/- per month. It has accordingly been contended that as the peƟƟoners are performing similar nature of work and are having the same requisite qualificaƟon as the permanent employees, thus they are enƟtled to equal pay for equal work. 5. In support of their said contenƟon, peƟƟoners have relied upon noƟficaƟon dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Government of Haryana providing equal pay for equal work to the contractual employees. PeƟƟoners have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 Ɵtled as State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh decided on 26.10.2016, to contend that principle of equal pay for equal work is vested in every employee whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. 6. When confronted with the above, ld. State counsel has referred to the wriƩen statement dated 30.01.2025 filed on behalf of the respondents to submit that the peƟƟoners have no locus standi to file the present writ peƟƟon NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-10084-2019 (O&M) - 3 - as peƟƟoners are not the employees of the respondent department and have been employed through a contractor and salaries are being paid to them through the contracƟng agency. It is accordingly submiƩed that there is no merit to the present peƟƟon and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 8. A perusal of the WriƩen Statement dated 30.01.2025 filed by the respondents, shows that in Para Nos.2 and 3, it is stated as follows: - “2. That the peƟƟoners have no locus-standi to file the present writ peƟƟon as the peƟƟoners are not the employees of the respondent department in any form. The peƟƟoners are not engaged as daily wager/ ad-hoc / contractual employee/ part Ɵme employee/ temporary employee. Neither they are engaged on sancƟoned vacant post nor they were engaged through any selecƟon mode. The department never publishes any adverƟsement for their selecƟon nor any commiƩee was consƟtuted engage them. Factual posiƟon is that the peƟƟoners were engaged through contractual agency/ service providers and the salaries for the work are paid directly by the contractual agency/service providers and not by the respondents department. The contractual agency/ service providers are alloƩed the contract as job work. It is further submiƩed that these workers were not employed on any post as such but were engaged by the contractual agencies/ service providers who were alloƩed the work of department on job work basis. No appointment leƩers were ever issued to the peƟƟoners by the respondents department. 3. That the present writ peƟƟon of the peƟƟoners is not maintainable as they have not challenged the instrucƟon dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-1). The Govt. of Haryana on 03.11.2017 had issued the instrucƟon for Equal NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-10084-2019 (O&M) - 4 - Pay Equal Work', in which it was categorically menƟoned that the Equal Pay Equal Work' principle will be applicable to only those employees who were engaged outsourcing policy Part-II dated 06.04.2015. As per the said outsourcing policy, Part-II employees are those employees who are engaged on sancƟoned vacant posts of Group C and D, by sending requisiƟon to the Employment Exchange and by adverƟsement in the newspapers, purely on contract basis, iniƟally for a period not exceeding one year or Ɵll the regular selected candidates are appointed, whichever is earlier.” The aforesaid contenƟons of the respondents have not been controverted by the peƟƟoners. As noted above, vide order dated 29.10.2022, Ɵme had been granted to the peƟƟoners to file a replicaƟon. However, Office report indicates that no replicaƟon has been filed Ɵll date. 9. Further, case law relied upon by the peƟƟoners in the aforemenƟoned case, is disƟnguishable, as in the said judgments, the peƟƟoners therein had either been engaged through adverƟsement, against sancƟoned vacant post/contractual or any other mode of appointment by the department. Whereas in the present case, peƟƟoners have not been engaged as daily wager/ad-hoc/contractual employee/part-Ɵme employee/temporary employee. 10. The peƟƟoners herein have not been engaged against sancƟoned vacant posts, nor have they been engaged through any selecƟon mode. No adverƟsement was issued for the selecƟon of the peƟƟoners, nor any commiƩee consƟtuted to engage them. It has clearly come on record that the peƟƟoners were engaged through contractual agency/service provider; and salaries of the peƟƟoners are being paid directly by the contractual agency/service provider and not by the respondent Department. In Para No.6 of NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-10084-2019 (O&M) - 5 - the wriƩen statement, respondents have further unequivocally averred that even the job of work is alloƩed to the peƟƟoners by the contractual agency/service provider. 11. As such, present Civil Writ peƟƟon is not maintainable. In similar circumstances, this Court in CWP-1822-2019 Ɵtled as Yamin and others vs. State of Haryana and other decided on 19.08.2020, held that no direcƟon can be issued to the State of Haryana to allow the peƟƟoners to conƟnue in the absence of any master-servant relaƟonship as State of Haryana is not the employer of the peƟƟoners therein. In the said case also, the peƟƟoners therein had been working for the HorƟculture Circle, Haryana through a private contractor. It is seƩled principle of law that writ only can be issued against the State or any instrumentality of State. As a private contractor is not the instrumentality of the State, therefore, writ peƟƟon is not maintainable. In the present Writ PeƟƟon, even the contractor(s) have not been impleaded by the peƟƟoners. The above-said legal posiƟon has been reiterated by this Court in Nishan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (Punjab and Haryana):Law Finder Doc Id#2736781. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal posiƟon, the present writ peƟƟon stands dismissed. 13. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 20.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh