SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1058-2001 (O&M) --2-- employees of the Medical College and Hospital were ordinarily liable to be transferred between the two and that, in terms of the Government instructions dated 20.10.1992, read with the relevant service rules, he was entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rate of 5% of his basic pay along with House Rent Allowance on slab basis (in the revised pay scale) w.e.f. 01.04.1991. Despite repeated representations and service of notice, the said benefit was denied by the defendants, hence, the suit seeking declaration along with consequential relief and interest was filed at the instance of the plaintiff. 3. Upon notice, appellants-defendants appeared and filed their written statement, while pleading that the plaintiff was not entitled for 5% extra house rent allowance in lieu of rent-free accommodation in terms of Govt. Notification dated 27.11.1986. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was working as a Sweeper in Medical College Rohtak and not in the hospital attached with the Medical College and as such, he was not eligible for the said benefit and therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration on the grounds as alleged ?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum ?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of legal notice under section 80 CPC ? OPD 5. Relief.” SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1058-2001 (O&M) --3-- 4.1 The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.1999 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereof, respondent-plaintiff filed first appeal, which came to be accepted by the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.11.2000 while holding the respondent- plaintiff entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rate of 5% of the basic pay together with House Rent Allowance on slab basis in lieu of rent-free accommodation with effect from 01.04.1991 along with consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereof, the present Regular Second Appeal was filed at the instance of Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and the State. 5. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21.11.2000, learned State counsel submits that the learned First Appellate Court has committed an error in extending the benefit of the Government instructions and the amended Punjab Civil Services Rules to the respondent, who was admittedly posted in the Medical College and not in the Hospital. It is contended that the statutory benefit was admissible only to Class-IV employees employed in Hospitals and Dispensaries and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the paper book and record, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 7. The short question before this Court is whether the benefit of House Rent Allowance available under the Notification dated 27.11.1986 to Class-IV employees "in Hospitals and Dispensaries" can be denied to a similarly situated Class-IV employee for the solitary reason that, on the date the claim fell due, he happened to be posted in the College wing rather than the Hospital wing of one and the same institution. The relevant portion of rule under Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.1, Part II, amended by SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1058-2001 (O&M) --4-- Notification dated 27.11.1986 is extracted hereunder:- “that regarding allotment of residential house of Government employees, regarding Department of Health, it is provided that all Pharmacists and Class-IV employees in Hospital and Dispensaries whether controlled by the Government or Local Fund, when no rent free accommodation is provided, a reasonable, House Rent Allowance, in lieu thereof, not exceed in, in any case, 10% of pay or the actual rent paid, whichever is less, can be granted, which shall be admissible. If the Government employeeS concerned is required to provide himself, for the proper performance of his duties, with accommodation in a particular locality which, in the opinion of the authority under whom he is serving, is conveniently near the premises where his regular duties have to be performed.” 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent-plaintiff is a Class-IV employee (Sweeper) borne on the cadre of Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, since 08.09.1977 and that his post, admittedly, was transferable between the College and the Hospital, both being administered by the same controlling authority, namely, the Medical Superintendent/Principal, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. This position stood proved on record and, significantly, stands admitted by DW-1, namely, Jai Parkash Jindal, Assistant of PGIMS, Rohtak, in his cross-examination, who conceded that on administrative grounds, Class-IV staff were transferred from the Hospital to the College and vice-versa. Thus, the learned First Appellate Court, on an appreciation of the notification, rightly held that the Medical College and the Hospital, Rohtak, do not constitute two separate and independent entities for the purposes of this benefit; they are, in substance, one composite institution, functioning under a common administrative head, with a common cadre and mutually transferable Class-IV staff. 9. Further, the appellants-State were not able to point out any material distinguishing feature between a Sweeper posted in the College and a Sweeper posted in the Hospital, other than the ephemeral fact of current SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1058-2001 (O&M) --5-- posting, which itself is liable to change at any time on account of the admitted transferability of the post. The claim of the appellants-defendants that there was a difference in the duties of Sweepers working in the College vis-à-vis the Hospital namely, that there was only morning-shift duty in the Medical College, Rohtak, while in the Hospital, this duty is performed in shifts, day and night, does not inspire the confidence of this Court especially, in view of the documentary record in the form of duty rosters, which show that the respondent-plaintiff himself had, in fact, remained posted in the Hospital wing on more than one occasion, including on night duty and as Post-Mortem Helper. 10. On a bare perusal of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as amended by order of the Governor of Haryana vide Notification dated 27.11.1986, for different Departments of the State Government, it is evident that they relate to who is entitled to free accommodation, irrespective of the fact whether the person is a Gazetted Officer or a Class-IV Government employee; and, regarding the Department of Health, para 8 (1)(iii), it has been specifically clarified that all Class-IV employees in Hospitals and Dispensaries, whether controlled by the Government or Local Fund, where no rent-free accommodation is provided to them, are entitled to receive House Rent Allowance in lieu thereof. A Medical College, without the attached Hospital, cannot function, and it is this very interdependence which persuades this Court that artificially bifurcating the two wings for the purpose of extending or denying a welfare benefit such as House Rent Allowance would result in hostile discrimination between employees who are, for all practical purposes, indistinguishably placed; such a bifurcation, therefore, cannot be accepted as the correct interpretation of the aforesaid Rule. SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1058-2001 (O&M) --6-- 11. It may further be noted that the appellants-defendants have not, at any stage of these proceedings, denied that Class-IV employees posted in the Hospital are extended the benefit claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. Once that basic entitlement is not disputed, the burden lay upon the appellants to justify the exclusion of similarly circumstanced Class-IV employees of the College wing, more so when their own witness, DW-1, has been unable to point to any rational basis for such exclusion beyond the bare fact of posting. The rejection of the Director's request by the Commissioner and Secretary, Health Department, vide letter dated 07.01.1994, being contrary to the statutory rule position under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, could not have been permitted to override or dilute the plain language of the notification dated 27.11.1986 itself. 12. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1493 held that on the ground of parity, employees are entitled to the same benefits which are provided to all similarly situated employees working under different zones/divisions, and there cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees. Denying similar benefits to similarly situated government employees working under the same employer amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The relevant paragraph thereof is extracted hereunder:- “7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer - Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer - Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1058-2001 (O&M) --7-- cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees - Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer. 8. The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be permitted to repeat the same arguments which were raised before different Tribunals, High Courts and also before this Court. Under the circumstances, the respondents - Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway shall also be entitled to the same benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions are held to be entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” Therefore, all Class-IV employees (Sweepers) working under the same competent authority the Medical Superintendent/Director/Principal, Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak cannot be denied the benefits granted to similarly situated employees merely on the arbitrary ground of their posting in the College as opposed to the Hospital. 13. In such circumstances, finding no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court which are based upon proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available on record and there being no misreading thereof been pointed out specifically; the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.11.2000 calls for no interference. Resultantly, the present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 03.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SONIKA 2026.07.09 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document