CWP-9196- IN TH 208(2 cases) 1. Bhupinder Si State of Hary 2. Sunil Kumar State of Hary CORAM: Present : 1 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA cases) Date of der Singh VERSUS f Haryana and others umar and another VERSUS f Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Arjun Dev, Advocate for Mr the petitioner(s) in CWP-9196- Ms. Tehermehakdeep, Advoc Advocate for the petitioner(s) in Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, H Mr. Aakash Yadav, Advocate fo CWP-9196-2021. Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Mr. Har Mr. Mister Ojasvi Taak, Advoca in CWP-9196-2021 and 3878-20 NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH ate of Decision: February 24, 2026 CWP-9196-2021 .....Petitioner SUS ..Respondents CWP-3878-2020 .....Petitioners SUS ..Respondents E HARPREET SINGH BRAR for Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for -2021. dvocate for Ms. Dhivya Jerath, r(s) in CWP-3878-2020. AG, Haryana. cate for respondents No.2 and 3 in r. Hardeep Singh Poonia and dvocates for respondents No.2 & 3 2020. dents s dents ate for erath, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- HARPREET 1. petitions as th brevity, the fa 2. the Constitut nature of cert whereby the work has be engaged afte petitioner can Further prayi the responden scale plus all work. Furthe of the peti representation 3. respondent- selection and Attendant in participated i 2 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispos ns as they arise from a similar factual m , the facts are taken from CWP-9196 The present writ petition(s) have nstitution of India for issuance of an of certiorari for quashing the order da y the claim of petitioner and others f has been declined on the ground th d after following the due process an ner cannot be taken at par with the r praying for issuance of a writ in the pondents to pay the petitioner consolid lus allowances as admissible on the p Further for directing the respondents to petitioner along with regular ntation (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petition -Nigam had issued an advertise on and appointment of 1100 posts o ant in District Kaithal, Haryana. T pated in the selection process and was dispose of the above-mentioned writ ctual matrix. However, for the sake of 9196-2021. ) have been filed under Article 226 of of an appropriate writ or order in the der dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) thers for grant of equal pay for equal nd that the petitioner has not been ess and the services rendered by the h the services of regular employees. in the nature of mandamus directing nsolidated pay at the initial of the pay n the principle of equal pay for equal ents to decide the claim of pay parity ular employees as mentioned in etitioner, inter alia, contends that the vertisement inviting applications for osts of Assistant Lineman and Shift ana. The petitioner, being eligible, d was appointed as Shift Attendant on d writ ake of 226 of in the 5) equal been y the oyees. ecting e pay equal parity ed in at the ns for Shift igible, ant on PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- contractual b remuneration 3.1. the State d departments Pay + DA) o the Deputy C is higher. Th w.e.f. 01.03.2 monthly rem notice. Aggri CWP-22428 directing the all consequen work and his that perennia counterparts. in view of t Appeal No.21 3.2. petitioner fil (Annexure P consequentia 3 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 tual basis and joined duties on 0 eration was fixed on DC rates with effe It is further submitted that vide tate directed that contractual em ents be paid either 50% of the initial DA) of a fresh regular entrant after 01 puty Commissioner under the Minimu er. The petitioner was being paid DC 01.03.2014. However, pursuant to off ly remuneration was reduced withou Aggrieved, the petitioner along with 2428-2014, which was allowed on ng the respondents to make payment o sequential benefits within three mont nd his contract has been extended fro erennial work is being extracted fr rparts. As such, the petitioner is entitl of the judgment passed by the Ho l No.213-2013, titled as State of Punja It is further submitted that ner filed CWP-7596-2017 which wa ure P-3) directing that the petitioners uential benefits and clarifying that i on 01.05.2007. Subsequently, his ith effect from 16.03.2009. at vide instructions dated 14.02.2013, l employees engaged in various initial pay (Pay in Pay Band + Grade fter 01.01.2006 or the wages fixed by inimum Wages Act, 1948, whichever id DC rates @ Rs.14,560/- per month to office order dated 21.07.2014, his ithout issuance of any show cause ith similarly situated persons filed ed on 13.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) ent of salary as per clarification with months. The petitioner continues to ed from time to time. It is contended ted from him at par with regular s entitled to equal pay for equal work Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil unjab Versus Jagjit Singh. that the employees including the ich was disposed of on 10.08.2017 tioners be paid minimum wages with that if any employee was receiving y, his .2013, arious Grade ed by hever month 4, his cause s filed 2) n with ues to ended egular work Civil g the .2017 s with eiving PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- higher wages led to filing (Annexure P regular pay sc 3.3. 07.12.2018 ( the petitioner not covered submits that through a tran the petitioner Reference h 06.02.2020 t contractual a duties as AL speaking orde 4. petitioner wa engagement recruitment r accountabilit not entitled t 4 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 wages, the same could not be reduced filing of COCP-1122-2018, which ure P-4) after clearance of arrears. H pay scale was not granted. Learned counsel further submits 018 (Annexure P-5) rejected the clai itioner was not engaged after adopting vered under Jagjit Singh's case (sup s that the petitioner was appointed pur h a transparent process and that the res itioner is rendering services for main nce has been made to Annexure 020 to demonstrate that identical tual as well as regular employees, in as ALMs and LMs. It is contended th ng order is hyper-technical and contrar Per contra, learned counsel for t ner was not appointed pursuant to the ment was purely contractual, w ment rules. It is contended that the tability of regular employees is higher titled to parity in pay. It is also argue educed. Non-compliance of the same hich was dismissed on 17.12.2018 rears. However, the minimum of the ubmits that the impugned order dated e claim primarily on the ground that opting due process and that his case is (supra) . Learned counsel further ted pursuant to a public advertisement the respondents themselves admit that maintenance of the Nigam's system. exure P-6 and office order dated tical duties have been assigned to ees, including 22 persons performing ded that the reasoning adopted in the ontrary to record. el for the respondents submits that the to the said advertisement and that his al, without adherence to regular at the degree of responsibility and higher and, therefore, the petitioner is argued that the petitioner voluntarily same 18 of the dated d that ase is urther ement it that stem. dated ed to rming in the at the at his egular y and ner is tarily PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- accepted the conditions, an 5. record with th appointed in is being extr and the resp statement. Th for the last 1 his appointm quantitatively 6. how the natu discharged b that some ma his regular c petitioner wa joined servic qualifications nearly two de 7. the constituti While Article 5 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 ed the job on contractual terms and w ons, and thus is bound by them. I have heard the learned counsel with their able assistance. It transpires ted in the year 2007 and is continuous g extracted from petitioner(s) at par e respondent-Nigam has not controv ent. There is no denial to the fact that last 17-18 years.The petitioner has r ointment and has been performing id atively, to his regular counterparts. Learned counsel for the respond e nature of duties discharged by the p rged by his regular counterparts. It is me material differences exist between ular counterparts, however, it has o ner was aware of the terms of service. service on contractual basis, it remai cations for the post and has been p two decades. The doctrine of 'Equal Pay for E stitutional philosophy and reflects the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was well aware of its terms and ounsel for the parties and perused the nspires that the petitioner was initially inuously working. The perennial work at par with their regular counterparts ontroverted this fact in their written t that the petitioner has been working r has rendered full time service since ing identical duties, qualitatively and espondent has been unable to indicate the petitioner are distinct from those . It is not the case of the respondent tween the service of the petitioner and has only been emphasized that the ervice. While the petitioner may have remains a fact that he possesses the een performing the same duties for y for Equal Work' is deeply rooted in cts the values that the State stands for. India forbids arbitrary discrimination s and ed the itially l work rparts ritten orking since ly and dicate those ndent er and at the have es the es for ted in ds for. nation PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- sans an intell framers to pr said provision “Artic The St equal Article The Sta 8. State Policy Pay for Equa right by mea social justice Randhir Sin through Justi this regard: “8. It expres it certa procla Direct men an 6 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 intelligible differentia, Article 39(d) s to provide equal pay for equal work, ovisions read as follows: rticle 14- Equality before law e State shall not deny to any person ual protection of the laws within the rticle 39- Certain Principles of Polic e State shall, in particular, direct its (d) that there is equal pay for women;” Certainly, Article 39(d) forms a olicy and is non-justiciable in itself, r Equal Work has been elevated into y means of Article 14 and 16, aided b justice. A three-Judge bench of th Singh Vs. A three-Judge bench of th Singh Vs. Union of India 1982 h Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, made It is true that the principle of 'eq pressly declared by our Constitution certainly is a Constitutional goal. A oclaims 'equal pay for equal work irective Principle of State Policy. 'Eq en and women' means equal pay for 39(d) highlights the intention of the work, for men and women alike. The erson equality before the law or the the territory of India. Policy to be Followed by the State ct its policy towards securing— for equal work for both men and orms a part of Directive Principles of itself, however, the doctrine of Equal ed into an enforceable constitutional d by the constitutional promise of of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1982(1) SCC 618, while speaking , made the following observations in f 'equal pay for equal work' is not ution to be a fundamental right. But al. Article 39(d) of the Constitution ork for both men and women' as a . 'Equal pay for equal work for both for equal work for everyone and as of the e. The the and les of Equal tional ise of urt in aking ons in not But tion as a both d as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- betwee some fundam Consti the law that th relatin These everyo the Co the wo will ha specia barons discrim matter the Ex tycoon nature Questi yet ma equalit The pr people Democ someth it mus 'equal system 2 of S 7 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 tween the sexes. Directive principl me of the judgments of this Cou ndamental rights as a matter of in onstitution enjoins the state not to d e law or the equal protection of th at there shall be equality of opportu lating to employment or appointmen ese equality clauses of the Constitu eryone. To the vast majority of the e Constitution would mean nothing e work they do and the pay they ge ll have some substance if equal work ecial procedure prescribed by a sta rons and smuggler kings or for scriminatory, whether a particular atter of grant of licences or permits e Executive, whether the takeover coons is arbitrary and unconstitutio ture, leave the millions of peopl uestions concerning wages and the t matters of vital concern to them uality clauses of the Constitution h e preamble to the Constitution decla ople of India to constitute Indi emocratic Republic. Again the mething. Even if it does not mean 'T must atleast mean 'equal pay for ual pay for equal work' is expres stems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the of Section 111 of the Czechoslo ciples, as has been pointed out in ourt have to be read into the of interpretation. Article 14 of the to deny any person equality before of the laws and Article 16 declares portunity for all citizens in matters tment to any office under the State. nstitution must mean some thing to f the people the equality clauses of thing if they are unconcerned with ey get. To them the equality clauses work means equal pay. Whether the a statute for trying alleged robber for dealing with tax evaders is cular Governmental policy in the its confers unfettered discretion on over of the empires of industrial tutional and other questions of like eople of this country untouched. the like, mundane they may be, are and it is there, if at all that the ion have any significance to them eclares the solemn resolution of the India into a Sovereign Socialist the word 'Socialist' must mean an 'To each according to his need' , for equal work'. The principle of pressly recognised by all socialist f the Hungarian Labour Code, para oslovak Code, Section 67 of the t in the the fore ares tters tate. g to s of with uses r the ber- s is the n on trial like hed. are t the em. f the alist ean ed' , e of alist para the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- Bulgar Repub princip Under Code must b agreem Germa Consti Interna the Co the pr constit conditi numbe harmo in the the pr Article pay ba these d same e 9. identical wo discriminatio submission, c 8 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 lgarian Code, Section 40 of the Co public, para 2 of Section 33 of th inciple has been incorporated in sev nder provisions in Section 31(g.No de du Travail, and according to A ust be applied to female workers reements. In accordance with Secti erman Federal Republic, and clause nstitution, the principle is given ternational Labour Law by Istvan S e Constitution of the International L e principle of 'equal remuneration nstituting one of the means of a nditions "involving such injustice, h mbers of people as to produce unr rmony of the world are imperiled" . the light of the Preamble and Artic e principle 'Equal pay for Equal rticle and may be properly applied y based on no classification or ir ese drawing the different scales of p me employer.” Thus, allowing a State employ al work would essentially amou ination which would force vulnera sion, compelling them to choose bet e Code of the German Democratic f the Rumanian Code. Indeed this n several western labour codes too. .No. 2d) of Book 1 of the French to Argentinean law, this principle rkers in all collective bargaining Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the lause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican ven universal significance (vide : an Szaszy p. 265). The preamble of al Labour Organisation recognises ation for work of equal value' as of achieving the improvement of ce, hardship and privation to large unrest so great that the peace and ed" . Construing Articles 14 and 16 Article 39(d) we are of the view that ual work' is deducible from those lied to cases of unequal scales of or irrational classification though of pay do identical work under the (emphasis added) employer to pay unequal wages for amount to validating whimsical ulnerable workers into involuntary se between survival and self-respect. ratic this too. ench iple ning f the ican de : le of ises ' as t of arge and d 16 that hose s of ugh r the es for msical untary spect. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- Such affront Articles 14 an 10. Punjab Vs. J the doctrine o Justice Jagdis “44. W claim employ ‘equal 9 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 ffront to human dignity is unaccepta s 14 and 21. A two Judge Bench of the Hon Vs. Jagjit Singh 2017(1) SCC 148 ctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work Jagdish Singh Khehar, made the follo 4. We shall first outline the conclu aim for pay parity, raised at the han ployees, was accepted by this Cou qual pay for equal work’, with refere (i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli ca for pay parity raised by tempor to those being disbursed to regu accepted. The action of not pay work being the same, was consi of the Constitution. It was hel exploitation - in a welfare state of society. (ii) In the Surinder Singh case equal wages claimed by tempo alia, from Article 39 of the Cons pay for equal work’ was aga employee had been appointed reference employee was borne o The temporary employee was h an employee on the regular es this Court also took note of the cceptable being in direct violation of e Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of 48 has discussed the applicability of ork in extenso and speaking through e following observations, nclusions drawn in cases where a hands of the concerned temporary Court, by applying the principle of eference to regular employees: case this Court examined a claim porary employees, for wages equal regular employees. The prayer was t paying the same wage, despite the considered as violative of Article 14 s held that the action amounted to tate committed to a socialist pattern ase this Court held that the right of mporary employees emerged, inter Constitution. The principle of ‘equal again applied, where the subject nted on temporary basis, and the rne on the permanent establishment. as held entitled to wages drawn by ar establishment. In this judgment, f the fact that the above proposition ion of te of lity of rough re a rary le of laim qual was the e 14 d to ttern ht of inter qual ject the ent. n by ent, ition PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- 10 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 was affirmed by a Constitution Nakara case. (iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case claim for equal wages, the du would remain (or had remain any difference. So also, th appointment would make n whether the selection was m competition or was limited t considered inconsequential, ins principle is concerned. And like was for a fixed limited duration for an unlimited duratio inconsequential, insofar as the ‘equal pay for equal work’ is c claim for equal wages wou employee is required to di responsibilities as regular em employee possesses the qualific In the above case, this Court re on behalf of the Government tha employees in question was concerned employees were eng and against posts which were basis. (iv) In the Daily Rated Casual Department through Bhartiya D this Court held that under princ of the Constitution, Governmen tion Bench of this Court, in the D.S. case this Court recorded that in a e duration for which an employee ained) engaged, would not make , the manner of selection and e no difference. And therefore, as made on the basis of open ed to a cluster of villages, was , insofar as the applicability of the likewise, whether the appointment ation (six months, or one year), or ration, was also considered the applicability of the principle of ’ is concerned. It was held that the would be sustainable where an discharge similar duties and r employees, and the concerned alifications prescribed for the post. rt rejected the contention advanced t that the plea of equal wages by the as not sustainable because the engaged in a temporary scheme, ere sanctioned on a year-to-year sual Labour Employed under P&T tiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case principle flowing from Article 38(2) ment could not deny a temporary D.S. in a oyee ake and fore, pen was f the ent ), or ered le of t the an and rned post. nced the the eme, year &T case 8(2) rary PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- 11 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 employee at least the minim employee in the correspondin dearness allowance and addit well as all the other benefits w casual workers. It was also workers (as unskilled, semi-skill work, into different categorie different rates, was not tenable act of an employer would amo that the same would be arbi therefore violative of Articles 14 (v) In State of Punjab v. Devin this Court held that daily-wager the minimum of the pay-scale against the same post. The ab accepting that the concerned e work as regular incumbents hol the principle of ‘equal pay for eq (vi) In the Secretary, State of K Bench of this Court set aside th and directed that daily-wagers lowest grade of salary and all employees. Importantly, in this important distinction between p was held that the concept of equ issues of absorption/regularisat as applicable, and was indeed parity - if the work componen rendered by the High Court was inimum wage being paid to an nding regular cadre, along with additional dearness allowance, as fits which were being extended to lso held that the classification of skilled and skilled), doing the same ories, for payment of wages at able. It was also held that such an amount to exploitation, and further arbitrary and discriminatory, and s 14 and 16 of the Constitution. evinder Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595, agers were entitled to be placed in cale of regular employees, working e above direction was issued after ed employees were doing the same holding the same post, by applying or equal work’. of Karnataka case, a Constitution de the judgment of the High Court, ers be paid salary equal to the allowances being paid to regular this case, this Court made a very en pay parity and regularisation. It f equality would not be applicable to risation. But the concept was held deed applied, to the issue of pay onent was the same. The judgment was modified by this Court, and the an with , as d to n of ame s at h an ther and 595, d in king after ame ying tion urt, the ular very n. It le to held pay ent the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- 12 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 concerned daily-wage employe wages equal to the salary at the cadre. (vii) In State of Haryana v. Ch 170 : (2006) 9 SCC 321, a three that the decisions rendered by th Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC Raj, 2003 (4) S.C.T. 485 : (2 University of Agriculture Government of W.B. v. Tarun (2004) 1 SCC 347, laid down th Court declared that if the con could establish that they were p quality, and all other releva direction by a Court to pay such the date of filing the writ petitio (viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti La decisions in several cases (whe for equal work’ had been invo wager discharging similar dutie basis, would be entitled to draw the pay-scale (drawn by his cou basis), but would not be entitl increments. (ix) In the Uttar Pradesh Land this Court noticed that the re contract basis, on a consolida ployees were directed to be paid t the lowest grade of the concerned . Charanjit Singh, 2006 (3) S.C.T. hree-Judge Bench of this Court held by this Court in State of Haryana v. CC 77; State of Haryana v. Tilak : (2003) 6 SCC 123; the Orissa re & Technology case; and arun K. Roy, 2004 (1) S.C.T. 78 : wn the correct law. Thereupon, this concerned daily-wage employees ere performing equal work of equal elevant factors were fulfilled, a such employees equal wages (from etition) would be justified. tti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337, based on wherein the principle of ‘equal pay invoked), it was held that a daily duties as those engaged on regular draw his wages at the minimum of s counterpart appointed on regular ntitled to any other allowances or and Development Corporation case respondents were employed on olidated salary. But, because they paid rned C.T. held a v. ilak rissa and 78 : this yees qual d, a rom d on pay aily- ular m of ular s or case on they PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- 55. In param same same d Such founda a lesse and sh the co knows, accept to oth enslav the ac involun 11. rendered by t 13 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 were actually appointed to per Assistant Engineer, this Court the respondents wages in the ascribed for the post of Assistan X X . In our considered view, it is fal rameters to deny fruits of labour. me work, cannot be paid less tha me duties and responsibilities. Cer ch an action besides being dem undation of human dignity. Any on lesser wage, does not do so voluntar d shelter to his family, at the cost o e cost of his self worth, and at th ows, that his dependents would su cept the lesser wage. Any act, of pa others similarly situate, consti slavement, emerging out of a domi e action is oppressive, suppressive voluntary subjugation.” Reliance in this regard may ed by this court in Jarnail Singh Vs. P perform the work of the post of ourt directed the employer to pay the minimum of the pay-scales istant Engineer. X X X s fallacious to determine artificial ur. An employee engaged for the than another, who performs the . Certainly not, in a welfare state. demeaning, strikes at the very y one, who is compelled to work at ntarily. He does so, to provide food ost of his self respect and dignity, at at the cost of his integrity. For he d suffer immensely, if he does not of paying less wages, as compared nstitutes an act of exploitative domineering position. Undoubtedly, ssive and coercive, as it compels (emphasis added) may be placed on the judgement s. PSPCL CWP -11499-2022. st of pay ales icial the the tate. very rk at food y, at r he not ared ative dly, pels dded) ement PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- 12. that they pe respondents h stark differen contractual b to the questi The reasonin 5) is, therefor 13. allowed. Acc is hereby qua 14. granting the instructions d of a certified 15. under any re within three m 16. case. February 24 P.C 14 -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 In the present case, the petitione ey perform identical duties to th dents have failed to provide any intel ifference in wages. The fact that the tual basis, and not through a regular re question of pay parity once it is establ asoning adopted in the speaking order erefore, hyper-technical and contrary In view of the discussion ab d. Accordingly, the impugned order da by quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed g the minimum of the regular pay sca tions dated 14.02.2013, within a perio rtified copy of this order. Furthermore, in case the case any regularization policy, they shall b three months and an appropriate order Photocopy of this order be plac ary 24, 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : titioners have successfully established to their regular counterparts. The y intelligible differentia to justify the at the petitioners were engaged on a ular recruitment process, is irrelevant established that the work is the same. order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P ntrary to the settled position of law. on above the present petitions are rder dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) ected to pass an appropriate order ay scale to the petitioners in terms of a period of three months from receipt case of the petitioners are covered shall be considered for regularization order be passed in this regard. e placed on the file of the connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No lished . The fy the on a levant same. ure P- s are 5) order ms of eceipt vered zation nected RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document