101-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HAWA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA CM-8389-CWP This application is filed by the petitioner for disposing of the Writ Petition which is on the regular board of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed in CWP For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed the main Writ Petition is taken on board today itself. CWP-23826-20 1. L both are ad idem by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed in bunch of writ petitions with lead case of Singh and others Coordinate Bench held as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HAWA SINGH AND OTHERS V STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) CWP-2025 This application is filed by the petitioner for disposing of the Writ Petition which is on the regular board of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed in CWP-11710-2014. For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed the main Writ Petition is taken on board today itself. 2017 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel ad idem that the issue raised in the present petition stands concluded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed in bunch of writ petitions with lead case of CWP Singh and others vs. The State of Haryana and Coordinate Bench held as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23826-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4th July, 2025 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. This application is filed by the petitioner for disposing of the Writ Petition which is on the regular board of this Court in terms of the judgment 2014. For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed the main Writ Petition is taken on board today itself. earned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel the issue raised in the present petition stands concluded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed in CWP-11710-2014 titled as ‘Sarbans The State of Haryana and others’, wherein the (O&M) , 2025 This application is filed by the petitioner for disposing of the Writ Petition which is on the regular board of this Court in terms of the judgment For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed earned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel the issue raised in the present petition stands concluded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Sarbans , wherein the SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.07 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23826-2017 (O&M) 2017 (O&M) “95. In the present case, the petitioners are all regularly appointed employees. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that they have a vested right to claim "equal pay for equal work". Accordingly, this Court holds that Sections 3 and 4 of the H Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical and Non Technical posts) Act, 2014 is applicable prospectively qua appointments made after the said enactment. It is imperative to widen the scope of the proviso to Section 4 to do complete justice between the parties. Therefore, it is held that not only the employees who were already enjoying the benefits of the upgraded pre-revised scales will be granted the said pay scale but also the employees like the petitioners who were not granted the aforesaid pre pay scales" will also be granted the same. The provisions of the Act will be applicable prospectively from the date of its coming into force. 96. In Conclusion, it is held as follows: (i) The legislative competen Government is not in dispute and therefore the constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the 2014 Act is upheld. (ii) However, Sections 3 and 4 of the 2014 Act will be applicable prospectively from the date the 2013 Ordinance was notified on December 10, 2013 and will be applicable qua the new recruits who were appointed to the posts where technical qualifications have been prescribed as per Section 2(h). (iii) The pay of the petitioners is required to be "stepped up" at par with their the petitioners were regularised in service. 97. Accordingly, the authorities are directed to compute the arrears of such difference in pay from the date of regularisation of the petitioners and pay the same along with interest @ 6% per annum. However, the interest @ 6% per annum shall be restricted to a period of three years prior “95. In the present case, the petitioners are all regularly appointed employees. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that they have a vested right to claim "equal pay for equal work". Accordingly, this Court holds that Sections 3 and 4 of the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical and Non- Technical posts) Act, 2014 is applicable prospectively qua appointments made after the said enactment. It is imperative to widen the scope of the proviso to Section 4 to do complete stice between the parties. Therefore, it is held that not only the employees who were already enjoying the benefits of the revised scales will be granted the said pay scale but also the employees like the petitioners who were foresaid pre-revised upgraded "technical pay scales" will also be granted the same. The provisions of the Act will be applicable prospectively from the date of its 96. In Conclusion, it is held as follows: (i) The legislative competence of the State Government is not in dispute and therefore the constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the 2014 (ii) However, Sections 3 and 4 of the 2014 Act will be applicable prospectively from the date the 2013 Ordinance was notified on December 10, 2013 and will be applicable qua the new recruits who were appointed to the posts where technical qualifications have been prescribed as per Section 2(h). (iii) The pay of the petitioners is required to be "stepped up" at par with their juniors from the date the petitioners were regularised in service. 97. Accordingly, the authorities are directed to compute the arrears of such difference in pay from the date of regularisation of the petitioners and pay the same along per annum. However, the interest @ 6% per annum shall be restricted to a period of three years prior SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.07 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23826-2017 (O&M) 2. In view thereto, we terms mutatis mutandis. 3. All pending applications in this July 4, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whet 2017 (O&M) to filing of the writ petitions and paid till the time of actual date of disbursement of the arrears. The same shall be disbursed to the employees concern from the date of this judgment. 98. With the directions aforesaid, the aforementioned writ petitions are disposed of.” In view thereto, we dispose of the present petition in the aforesaid mutatis mutandis. All pending applications in this case [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Whether speaking / reasoned : Whetpher Reportable : to filing of the writ petitions and paid till the time of actual date of disbursement of the arrears. The same shall be disbursed to the employees concerned, within three months from the date of this judgment. 98. With the directions aforesaid, the aforementioned writ petitions are disposed of.” the present petition in the aforesaid case are disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No the present petition in the aforesaid disposed of accordingly. SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.07 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document