Sarbans Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors (CWP 11710/2014)

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Decided: 25 March 2025
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal, Lapita Banerji
Case no.: CWP 11710/2014

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

IN THE H

Sarbans Singh

V The State of H

Narender Sin

V The State of H

Suresh Kuma

V The State of H Naresh Kuma

V The State of H

Sukhbir Singh

V The State of H

Girraj Singh

V The State of H

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A

CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.11710 OF RESERVED ON: D

DATE OF DECISIO h and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 20174 of 2 gh and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 20175 of 2 ar

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No.20334 of 2 ar

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 20423 of 2 h and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 20455 of 2 and others

… Versus Haryana and others

AND HARYANA AT F 2014 (O&M) DECEMBER 19, 2024 ON: MARCH 25, 2025 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioner …Respondents 2014 …Petitioner …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents

Rachhpal Sin

V The State of H Ashok Kumar

V The State of H Gajender Nat

V The State of H Balwan Singh

V The State of H Karnail Singh

V The State of H Babu Ram an

V The State of H Dharam Chan

V The State of H CWP No. 20752 of 2 gh and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 22331 of 2 r

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 20881 of 2 th Pandey and others Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 22332 of 2 h and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 12819 of 2 h and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 13043 of 2 nd others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 13193 of 2 nd and others

Versus Haryana and others

2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioner …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents

Rohtash Kum

V The State of H Umed Sigh an

V The State of H Kapoor Singh

V The State of H Sheetal Parka

V The State of H Ramesh Kum

V The State of H Azad Singh an

V The State of H Rajbir Singh

V The State of H CWP No. 14317 of 2 mar and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 14318 of 2 nd others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 14319 of 2 h and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 14608 of 2 ash and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 14651 of 2 mar and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 14736 of 2 nd others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 1957 of 20 and others

Versus Haryana and others

2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents …Petitioners …Respondents

Satish Kumar

V The State of H Balwan Singh

V The State of H Haryana Deve Action Comm

V The State of H Naresh Kuma

V The State of H Dharambir Si

V The State of H Rajinder Sing

V The State of H Suresh Kuma

V The State of H

CWP No. 3075 of 20 r and another

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 3085 of 20 h and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 3854 of 20 elopment Authority Joint mittee

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 5971 of 20 ar and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 6430 of 20 ingh and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 6561 of 20 gh

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 6886 of 20 ar

Versus Haryana and others

…Petitioners …Respondents …Petitioners …Respondents …Petitioners …Respondents …Petitioners …Respondents …Petitioners …Respondents …Petitioner …Respondents …Petitioner …Respondents

Nand Lal

V The State of H Rajender Sing

V The State of H Sobha Ram a

V The State of H Ishwar Dutt a

V The State of H Rajesh Kuma

V The State of H Uday Chand a

V The State of H Layak Ram a

V The State of H CWP No. 6892 of 20

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 24704 of 2 gh and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 24731 of 2 nd another

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 24784 of 2 and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 24833 of 2 ar and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 25492 of 2 and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 25514 of 2 and others

Versus Haryana and others

…Petitioner …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents

Sushma Devi

V The State of H Ram Bilas an

V The State of H Hari Shanker

V The State of H Ram Kumar

V The State of H Ranbir Singh

V The State of H Surender Kum

V The State of H Mohd. Musa K

V The State of H

CWP No. 25581 of 2

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 25602 of 2 d others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 26071 of 2 r and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No.17519 of 2

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 17759 of 2 Verma and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 17806 of 2 mar and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 18207 of 2 Khan and another

Versus Haryana and others

2014 …Petitioner …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2014 …Petitioners …Respondents 2015 …Petitioner …Respondents 2015 …Petitioners …Respondents 2015 …Petitioners …Respondents 2015 …Petitioners …Respondents

Karam Singh

V The State of H Rajender Pra

V The State of H Raj Bala

V The State of H Satpal Katari

V The State of H Jagdish Parsh

V The State of H Dilawar Singh

V The State of H Rohit Hooda V State of Hary CWP No. 18338 of 2

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 19494 of 2 asad and another

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 19654 of 2

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 21582 of 2 ia

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 23813 of 2 had

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 25929 of h

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 532 of 201

Versus ana and others 2015 …Petitioner …Respondents 2015 …Petitioners …Responde nts …Petitioner …Respondents 2015 …Petitioner …Respondents 2015 …Petitioner …Respondents 2015 …Petitioner …Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Sita Ram

State of Hary Prahlad Singh

State of Hary Partap Singh

State of Hary Subhash Chan

State of Hary Mahender Sin

State of Hary Ved Prakash

State of Hary Satbir Singh a

State of Hary CWP No. 2417 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 2398 of 20 h and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 3300 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12553 of 20 nder and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12818 of 20 ngh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 20629 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 10304 of 20 and others Versus ana and others

...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Sushila

State of Hary Vijender Kum

State of Hary Mohinder Sin

State of Hary Rajender Par

State of Hary Vipan Kumar

State of Hary Satish Kumar

State of Hary Suresh Kuma

State of Hary CWP No. 932 of 201

Versus ana and others

CWP No. 10791 of 20 mar and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 22593 of 20 ngh Versus ana and others CWP No. 957 of 201 rsad Versus ana and others CWP No. 1964 of 20 r and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 11768 of 20 r Versus ana and others CWP No. 2796 of 20 ar and another Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Nanak Chand

State of Hary Hari Ram and

State of Hary Bhim Sain an

State of Hary Surender Sing

State of Hary Raj Kumar an

State of Hary Rajbir Singh

State of Hary Hari Ram and

State of Hary CWP No. 14998 of 20 d Versus ana and others

CWP No. 171 of 201 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 3253 of 20 nd another Versus ana and others CWP No. 13481 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 25060 of 20 nd another Versus ana and others CWP No. 11237 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 12321 of 20 d others Versus ana and others ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Responde ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Neeraj Kuma

State of Hary Rajesh Kuma

State of Hary Rajbir Singh

State of Hary Narain Dass a

State of Hary Sunil Kumar

State of Hary Ranjeet Singh

State of Hary Sanjay

State of Hary CWP No. 14988 of 20 ar and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 22991 of 20 ar Versus ana and others CWP No. 24779 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12551 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12626 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 27081 of 20 h Versus ana and others CWP No. 27061 of 20

Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Ramesh Gupt

State of Hary Mahabir Sing

State of Hary Rajmal and a

State of Hary Rajbala and o

State of Hary Manjeet Kum

State of Hary Harinder Sing

State of Hary Navratan Ret

State of Hary CWP No. 25971 of 20 ta and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 25974 of 20 gh Versus ana and others CWP No. 25987 of 20 another Versus ana and others CWP No. 25986 of 20 others Versus ana and others CWP No. 25980 of 20 mar Versus ana and others CWP No. 25056 of 20 gh Versus ana and others CWP No. 26070 of 20 tired Mechanic Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Dharmvir and

State of Hary Ram Niwas an

State of Hary Omparkash a

State of Hary Om Parkash a

State of Hary Veer Chand

State of Hary Ram Phal

State of Hary Balbir Singh

State of Hary CWP No. 24272 of 20 d another Versus ana and others

CWP No. 1990 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 10079 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 10104 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 10128 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 10141 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 10519 of 20

Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Satbir Singh a

State of Hary Rajpal Sharm

State of Hary Dharampal an

State of Hary Suraj Bhan an

State of Hary Pardeep Kum

State of Hary Mahavir Sing

State of Hary Satish Kumar

State of Hary CWP No. 11416 of 20 and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 11430 of 20 ma and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 11843 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 11998 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12110 of 20 mar Versus ana and others CWP No. 5958 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 3709 of 20 r and others Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Suraj Bhan an

State of Hary Prem Kumar

State of Hary Suresh Kuma

State of Hary Subhash Chan

State of Hary Krishan Kum

State of Hary Ranbir Singh

State of Hary Bhag Singh

State of Hary CWP No. 9278 of 20 nd another Versus ana and others CWP No. 956 of 201

Versus ana and others CWP No. 3704 of 20 ar and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 8701 of 20 nder Versus ana and others CWP No. 13124 of 20 mar and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12837 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 10342 of 20

Versus ana and others

...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Kharak Singh

State of Hary Kaptan Singh

State of Hary Balbir Singh

State of Hary Ram Pal and

State of Hary Kishan Kuma

State of Hary Virender Sing

State of Hary Anil Kumar

State of Hary CWP No. 8308 of 20 h Versus ana and others

CWP No. 25538 of 20 h Versus ana and others CWP No. 12205 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 14248 of 20 others Versus ana and others CWP No. 14251 of 20 ar and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 14252 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 14300 of 20

Versus ana and others ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Laxmi Naray

State of Hary Om Parkash M

State of Hary Harpal Singh

State of Hary Nirmal Singh

State of Hary Rajbir Singh

State of Hary Yad Ram and

State of Hary Ganga Ram a

State of Hary CWP No. 14409 of 20 an and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 14536 of 20 Malik and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 14760 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 14876 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 12660 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 11653 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 22379 of 20 and others Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Roshan Lal an

State of Hary Mahabir Sing

State of Hary Satish Kumar

State of Hary Ranbir Singh

State of Hary Kalidass and

State of Hary Mannu Ram

State of Hary Bhagwan Sing

State of Hary CWP No. 22423 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 22609 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 22925 of 20 r and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 23605 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 23628 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 23632 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 23792 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others

...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Ram Singh a

State of Hary Budh Ram an

State of Hary Satya Bhan an

State of Hary Rajinder Sing

State of Hary Jamalu Deen

State of Hary Raj Kumar a

State of Hary Anand Parka

State of Hary CWP No. 23890 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 23905 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 8793 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 8836 of 20 gh and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 8932 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 8945 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 9919 of 20 sh Versus ana and others

Rajbir Singh

State of Hary Hawa Singh

State of Hary Bihari Lal an

State of Hary Ashok Kumar

State of Hary Rajo and oth

State of Hary Sant Ram and

State of Hary Dharam Singh

State of Hary CWP No. 9826 of 20 h and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 9995 of 20 and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 10073 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 10061 of 20 r Versus ana and others CWP No. 10075 of 20 hers Versus ana and others CWP No. 14915 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 14919 of 20 h and others Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Ramesh and

State of Hary Anand Parka

State of Hary Jagbir Singh

State of Hary Jugpreet Sing

State of Hary Rajbir Singh

State of Hary Hari Nath and

State of Hary Sumer Singh

State of Hary CWP No. 16090 of 20 others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 17827 of 20 sh Versus ana and others CWP No. 18495 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 18827 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 19570 of 20

Versus ana and another CWP No. 19913 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 19926 of 20 and others Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Mahender Ku

State of Hary Shakuntla D

State of Hary Madan Singh

State of Hary Mewa Ram a

State of Hary Ram Parkash

State of Hary Gian Singh

State of Hary Krishan Kum

State of Hary CWP No. 20134 of 20 umar and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 15971 of 20 Devi Versus ana and others CWP No. 16276 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 16285 of 20 and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 16299 of 20 h and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 16321 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 16351 of 20 mar Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Dev Raj

State of Hary Jagbir Singh

State of Hary Brij Mohan

State of Hary Braham Prak

State of Hary Hardwari Lal

State of Hary C.B Chauhan

State of Hary Savitri Devi a

State of Hary CWP No. 16379 of 20

Versus ana and others

CWP No. 16528 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 16957 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 17156 of 20 kash and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 26600 of 20 l and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 1037 of 20 n and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 1167 of 20 and others Versus ana and others ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Dharam Pal a

State of Hary Jasbir Singh a

State of Hary Subhas Chan

State of Hary Daya Nand an

State of Hary Suresh Kuma

State of Hary Satbir Singh a

State of Hary Jaibir Singh

State of Hary CWP No. 1313 of 20 and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 1510 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 1570 of 20 d and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 1837 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 1838 of 20 ar Versus ana and others CWP No. 1862 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 1936 of 20

Mohan Lal a

State of Hary Gopal Krisha

State of Hary Rajesh Kuma

State of Hary Ram Prasad a

State of Hary Ravinder Kum

State of Hary Vinod Kumar

State of Hary Raj Pal and o

State of Hary CWP No. 22333 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 22339 of 20 an and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 22340 of 20 ar Versus ana and others CWP No. 22342 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 22351 of 20 mar Chadha and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 22363 of 20 r Versus ana and others CWP No. 22373 of 20 others Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Hem Raj and

State of Hary Pritam Singh

State of Hary Ram Babu Gu

State of Hary Sat Pal and ot

State of Hary Hakam Singh

State of Hary Hiral Lal and

State of Hary Rakesh Kuma

State of Hary CWP No. 22374 of 20 others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 22378 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 7649 of 20 upta and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 7628 of 20 thers Versus ana and others CWP No. 7064 of 20 h and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 7817 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 7792 of 20 ar and another Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Satish Kumar

State of Hary Sanjay Kuma

State of Hary Subhash Chan

State of Hary Bijender Sing

State of Hary Mam Raj and

State of Hary Baljit Singh a

State of Hary Tara Chand a

State of Hary CWP No. 7837 of 20 r Versus ana and others

CWP No. 7843 of 20 ar Versus ana and others CWP No. 7848 of 20 nder and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 7753 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 8048 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 20698 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 25740 of 20 and another Versus ana and others ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Ram Kumar

State of Hary Sanjeev Kum

State of Hary Satish Kumar

State of Hary Dharmender

State of Hary Mahabir Sing

State of Hary Dhramvir and

State of Hary Mahender Sin

State of Hary CWP No. 4127 of 20

Versus ana and others

CWP No. 9646 of 20 ar Versus ana and others CWP No. 10794 of 20 r and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 7719 of 20 Singh Versus ana and others CWP No. 17688 of 20 gh Versus ana and others CWP No. 23623 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 14482 of 20 ngh and others Versus ana and others ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Mange Ram a

State of Hary Dharam Pal a

State of Hary Anand Singh

State of Hary Sanjeev

State of Hary Suraj Pal and

State of Hary Ashok Kumar

State of Hary Subhash Chan

State of Hary CWP No. 27089 of 20 and others Versus ana and others

CWP No. 19099 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 26273 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 26236 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 19829 of 20 d another Versus ana and others CWP No. 26522 of 20 r and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 2644 of 20 nder Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Ram Kumar a

State of Hary Mool Raj

State of Hary Shishpal and

State of Hary Satbir Singh a

State of Hary Mahabir Sing

State of Hary Tarsem Singh

State of Hary Panna Lal an

State of Hary Ranbir Singh

State of Hary CWP No. 27049 of 20 and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 32990 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 4571 of 20 others Versus ana and others CWP No. 25772 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 26954 of 20 gh Versus ana and others CWP No. 26806 of 20 h and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 9319 of 20 d another Versus ana and others CWP No. 23228 of 20 and others Versus ana and others

...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents

Sumer Singh

State of Hary

Kitabo

State of Hary

Dharampal Si

State of Hary Rajesh Kuma

State of Hary Partap Singh

State of Hary Joginder Sing

State of Hary Ishwar Singh

State of Hary Puran Singh s

State of Hary Haryana Roa

State of Hary CWP No. 25789 of 20 and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 23778 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 23840 of 20 ingh Versus ana and others CWP No. 5621 of 20 ar and another Versus ana and another CWP No. 18170 of 20 and another Versus ana and others CWP No. 1794 of 20 gh and others Versus ana and others CWP No. 15388 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 5405 of 20 s/o Shri Ram Singh Versus ana and others CWP No. 23064 of 20 dways Sankyut Karamchari S Versus ana and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents angh ...Petitioner ...Respondents

Ram Niwas an

State of Hary Jai Dev

State of Hary Telu Ram and

V The State of H Samsher Sing

V The State of H

Ram Pat and

State of Hary Ramesh Chan

State of Hary CORAM : H

H

Present : M M fo

M M M in

CWP No. 4751 of 20 nd others Versus ana and others CWP No. 5071 of 20

Versus ana and others CWP No. 24689 of 2 d others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 11602 of gh and others

Versus Haryana and others

CWP No. 22341 of 20 d others Versus ana and others CWP No. 12744 of 20 nd and others Versus ana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPIND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA B Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate or the petitioners (in CWP-12660 or the respondents (in LPA-1040 Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advoca Mr. A.S. Talwar, Advocate and Mr. A.S. Rawaley, Advocate for th n CWP-20698-2014. ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2014 …Petitioner …Respondents f 2017 …Petitioners …Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents DER SINGH GREWAL BANERJI with 0, 13043-2014) and -2012). ate with he petitioner(s)

M

M fo

M

M fo an

M

M fo

M

M an

M

Mr. Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advo Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-117 0794-2016). Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-26522-Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-203 5974, 25986, 25987, 25980, 270 nd 986-2016).

Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate for the n CWP-13124-2016. Mr. Ravinder Maik (Ravi), Advoc or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-127 2342, 22351, 22363, 22373, 223 015, 10891, 23623-2017). Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for th n CWP Nos.14251, 14252-2015 & Mr. Rakesh Deswal, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-9919-2 Mr. Siddharth Bhukkal, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-4751-2 Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate for the n CWP-13481-2016, 23228-2021 Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate or the petitioner(s) (in CWP-370 Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-23840-Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the nd 7 in CWP No.24689-2014. Mr. Manv Ahlawat, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate, or the petitioner in CWP-23632-2 ocate and 710, 16276-2014 and -2017). 334-2014, 6430, 25971, 061, 27081-2015, 932, 957 e petitioner (s) cate, 744, 22332, 22333, 22340, 74, 22379-2014, 17806-he petitioner(s) & 18827-2014. 2015). e 2022). e and e petitioner(s)

¶1e 9, 9278-2016). -2022). petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6

2014.

M

M in

M

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, or the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.1 Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate for th n CWP Nos.16090, 26071-2014, 4409-2015, 4127, 24799, 25060-Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate, or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-688 Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-207 Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, A or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-257 Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-706 Mr. S.S. Kaliramna, Advocate for n CWP Nos.11237-2017, 16528 a Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for th n CWP-14251-2015. Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for th n CWP Nos.25492, 25514, 14915 Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate an Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advo n CWP No.16285-2015. Mr. Ankur Goyat, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for n CWP Nos.14736-2014, 1751 7089-2015, 32990-2019 and 237 Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-195 Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for t n CWP Nos.19926 and 20134-20 14876 & 11237 of 2015. d e petitioner (s) 5971, 7843, 11416, 11430, -2016, 2417 & 2398-2018. 86-2015). 752-2014). Advocate 789-2015).

64-2015). r the petitioner(s) and 17156-2015. he petitioner (s) he petitioner (s) 5 and 14919 of 2014. nd cate for the petitioner (s) the petitioner(s) 19, 14760, 16299, 16351, 778-2022. 57-2015). r the petitioner (s)

014.

M

M in

M

M fo an

M

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for th n CWP No.21582-2015. Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate fo n CWP-8932, 9826, 12818-2015 Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advoca Mr. Baljeet Nain, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-246 Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for t n CWP Nos.14736, 23628, 23 995, 10075-2015 and 18170-20 Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-143 Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the n CWP-23632-2014. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, Advocate Mr. Manjit Singh Gahlawat, Advo n CWP No.7848-2015. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for n CWP Nos.22593-2016, 11768-2 nd 16321, 7792 and 7837-2015. Mr. R.S. Panghal, Advocate or the petitioner(s) (in CWP-201 Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for n CWP No.4571-2020. Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate, or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-116 nd for petitioner(s) No.11,27, 29 958-2016).

Ms. Sunita Devi, Advocate for the n CWP-171-2017. Mr. Pankaj Kundra, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-595 Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for n CWP-12551-2017. he petitioner(s) or the petitioner (s) 5, 2644, 8308-2016). ate 689-2014). the petitioner (s) 3632, 23792-2014, 8945,

¶23300-2015).

e petitioner(s) e and ocate for the petitioner(s) the petitioner(s) 2017, 22538-2017 74, 20175, 22331-2014). the petitioner (s) 602, 12626, 12837-2017) , 30, 32, 36, 37 (in CWP-e petitioner (s) 58, 20629-2016). the petitioner(s)

M

M M fo

M

Mr. Gurinderpal Singh, Advocate Ms. Sushma Singh, Advocate for n CWP Nos.11653, 20423, 20455 4704, 26600-2014, CWP Nos.15 015 and CWP Nos.1794-2018 an Mr. Arvind Yadav, Advocate for th n CWP-1510-2015. Mr. Yashpaul Malik, Advocate an Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-14536-Mr. Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advoca n CWP-25929-2015. Mr. Deepak Nayar, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-3854-2 Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-964 Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for th n CWP-12744-2014. Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate or the petitioner (in CWP-17827-Mr. S.P. Laler, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-893 Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for th n CWP-1037-2015. Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for th n CWP-12205-2015. Ms. Sunita Nain, Advocate for the n CWP-6561, 7753, 18207, 1949 2991-2016, 2796-2017, 2644-20 Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the n CWP-14998 and 14988-2016. Mr. Sushil Kamboj, Advocate Ms. Neetu Prashar, Advocate, for n CWP No.1964-2018.

and the petitioner (s) 5, 22431, 22423, 23890, 570, 4563, 11843, 11998-nd 1990-2016. he petitioner(s) d -2015). ate for the petitioner(s) 2015). 46-2018). he petitioner(s) -2014). 32-2015). he petitioner (s) he petitioner e petitioner (s) 94, 26070-2015, 019).

petitioner (s) the petitioner(s)

M

M fo

M

M M M M

M

M M M M

M

M Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate or the petitioner (s) in CWP-1597 Mr. Mohit Poswal, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate fo n CWP Nos.5071-2022, 10304-2 Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-268 Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-257 Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate or the petitioner (s) (in CWP-103 022). Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Redhu, Adv Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate Mr. Surya Parkash, Advocate and Mr. Jaskirat Singh, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate for Mr. Anil Rana, Advocate Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate, Mr. Amarjit Beniwal, Advocate, Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Advocate Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav, Advoca Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate Mr. Vishvanath Sharma, Advocate Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate Mr. Mukul Chandila, Advocate fo Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate, Mr. Dharamveer Phour, Advocate 71-2015. or the petitioner (s)

¶018806-2018). 740-2021). 304-2017 and CWP-5701-vocate e,

r ate e or e,

M

LAPITA BAN

T disposed of v questions of fa No.11710 of 2 and others" ar FACTUAL M

In Constitution o validity of Sec Mr. Sumer Singh, Advocate, Mr. Amit Malik, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate, Ms. Shabnam Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate, Mr. Samarvir Singh, Advocate Mr. Narinder Malhotra, Advocate or the petitioner(s). Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Har Mr. Saurabh Mago, Sr. DAG, Har Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, A Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate and Ms. Sanvi Singla, Advocate for th tate of Haryana. Mrs. Shubhra Singh, Advocate for n CWP-8793-2015). Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. S. K. Mahajan, Advocate for r n CWP-18338-2015).

NERJI, J. he abovementioned batch of vide this common judgment facts and law have arisen therei 2014 "Sarbans Singh and other re considered, for the purpose of MATRIX n the present writ petition filed of India, the petitioners have ch ctions 3 and 4 of the Haryana (

e, e for ryana and ryana and

Advocate, d he respondent-r respondents No.1 to 5

respondent No.5 f 225 writ petitions are and order since common n. The recitals from CWP rs v. The State of Haryana f a factual narrative. d under Article 226 of the hallenged the constitutional

Pay Scale betw after referred sought to with the instructio

09.08.2010 ret to be granted persons who h scale" under t continue to dra

In appointed on v their names w of the petition 55-2660-EB/6 effect from O petitioners, the that of the pet of Rs.4000-60 scale despite Petitioner No No.10-Raj Ku minimum pay effect from th Except them, a

T Assistant Mec ween Technical and Non-technic to as "2014 Act"). By the afo hdraw the benefit of "technical p ons dated 30.03.1982, 23.0 trospectively, with respect to th such benefits. The proviso to S had already been granted the b the said instructions or by virtue aw their pay in "technical pay sc n the writ petition it is stated various dates in the year 1993, ere forwarded by the Employme ners were regularized in the reg 0-3200 vide official order dat October 01, 2003. At the time e employees who were working itioners, were drawing their sala 000/-. However the petitioners being regularized. The petitio .2-Phulla Ram, Petitioner No umar and Petitioner No.13-Sure scale attached to the technical he date when they were appoin all others were given the D.C. rat he petitioners, thereafter, were hanic in the pay scale of Rs.520 cal posts) Act, 2014 (herein foresaid sections, the State pay scale" given in terms of

8.1990; 26.07.1991 and he employees who were yet Section 4 clarified that the benefits of "technical pay e of orders of Court "shall" cales". d that the petitioners were , on daily wage basis after ent Exchange. The services gular pay scale of Rs.2550-ted March 10, 2004 with e of regularization of the on the technical posts like ary under regular pay scale were granted a lesser pay oner No.1-Sarbans Singh, o.3-Sohan Lal, Petitioner esh Kumar, were given the l post along with D.A with nted on daily wage basis. te. e promoted to the post of 00-20,200+1800 grade pay,

whereas, they No.1-Sarbans Kumar, petiti petitioner No petitioner No aforesaid pay s

It Sections 3 and the Act, the p impugned prov the juniors of pay compared higher pay be against the we given a higher post and perf anomaly betw naturally have

A

26.07.1991 an "technical pay 2040/- under t revised from t and 6th Pay Co Act. were entitled to the grade pay o Singh, petitioner No.2-Phulla R oner No.3-Sohan Lal, petition o.7-Jangsher Singh were prom .17-Madan Lal was promoted scale with grade pay of Rs.2400/ t is the case of the petitioners th d 4 of the 2014 Act and specifica petitioners have been unfairly d visions of the 2014 Act had cre the petitioners working on the d to their seniors due to the fo ing granted to them, prior in ti ell settled principle of service la r pay compared to that of a seni forming the same duties. In th ween seniors and juniors, the p to be "stepped up". As per instructions dated nd 09.08.2010, the petitioners w y scale", The technical pay sca the instructions dated August 23 time to time, keeping in mind t ommission but arbitrarily withdr of Rs.2400/-. The petitioner Ram, petitioner No.10-Raj ner No.13-Suresh Kumar, moted as Mechanic and d as Black Smith in the /-. hat due to the enactment of ally proviso to Section 4 of discriminated against. The eated an anomaly whereby same post received higher fortuitous circumstances of ime. Such an anomaly was aw that no junior could be ior, while holding the same he event, there was a pay pay of the seniors would

30.03.1982,

23.08.1990, were all entitled to get the ale was fixed at Rs.1200-3, 1990, which was further the recommendations of 5th rawn by enactment of 2014

A petitioners had 2010 "Kuldeep of 2011 "Jagm of 2011 "Subh of 2011 "Phu grant of "techn petitions, the Technical and to as "2013 December 10, "technical pay been granted would continu granted to them

D pending writ January 29, 2 petitioners to with law. Ther March 11, 20 Haryana.

T employees out by respondent Nagar and only Against the denial of "technical d filed writ petitions being Civil p Kumar v. State of Haryana", mal Singh v. State of Haryana", hash v. State of Haryana" and Ci lla Ram and others v. State of nical pay scale". During the pen Haryana (Abolition of Distinct Non-Technical posts) Ordinance Ordinance") was promulgated 2013, withdrawing all the instru y scale" with a proviso that the e the benefit under the instructi ue to draw their salaries at "tec m. Due to the promulgation of the petitions were rendered infru 2014, liberty was granted by a challenge the validity of 2013 reafter, the 2014 Act came into f 014, upon the assent being gra he writ petitioners being aggri t of 115 employees being given t No.4-General Manager, Har y 17 employees being left out de l pay scale", some of the l Writ Petition Nos.8812 of Civil Writ Petition No.380 Civil Writ Petition No.614 ivil Writ Petition No.23740 f Haryana and others", for ndency of the aforesaid writ tion of Pay Scale between e 2013 (hereinafter referred d vide Notification dated uctions granting benefits of employees who had already ions and orders of Court, chnical pay scales" already e 2013 Ordinance, all the uctuous. Vide order dated a Coordinate Bench to the Ordinance, in accordance force vide notification dated anted by the Governor of ieved by the factum of 98 n the "technical pay scale" ryana Roadways, Yamuna

technical post petition. Only the Hon'ble H other employe possessed the "technical pay department its petitioners, 03 SUBMISSION

10.

M the petitioners existence to u working in the the employee respondents ha granting benef already been g of time. An A the vested righ did not permit prior to the pr said petitions c 2014 Act with the "technical Therefore, the India. ts, have challenged the said a the 17 employees whose cases High Court were denied the "tech ees including some of the junio same qualifications and discharg y scale" either by virtue of self by virtue of aforesaid instru have expired and 03 have retire NS ON BEHALF OF THE WR Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advoca s has argued that an Act could n unfairly discriminate against t e same class. Admittedly, some es to whom the benefits had ad acted arbitrarily and with p fits of "technical pay scale" t granted and were enjoying the sa Act could not be brought into forc hts of the petitioners. Just becaus t the writ petitions filed by the romulgation of the Ordinance/E could not be rendered infructuou h proviso to Section 4 regarding c l pay scale" to the employees e Act was violative of Article action in the present writ s had been pending before hnical pay scale", whereas ors of the petitioners who ged same duties were given Court orders or by the uctions. Out of the said 17 d. RIT PETITIONERS ate appearing on behalf of not have been brought into the employees who were e petitioners were senior to d been given. The State-atent illegality to continue to the employees who had ame due to sheer incidence ce retrospectively to negate se the business of the Court e petitioners to be decided Enforcement of the Act, the us by bringing into force the continuation of payment on who had already granted. 14 of the Constitution of

11.

It Act, by withdr take away th instructions, th scale" as som pay scale" rely the representa Hon'ble Cour advantage of promulgating retrospectively and manifestly

12.

T Haryana and relied upon by said judgment working on te scale", irrespe working on po Court were als set of emplo qualification o were held entit were referred b to be taken on

t was contended on behalf of th rawing the instructions that had he vested rights of the petiti he petitioners were entitled to t me of the employees were grante ying on the same. Just because t ations of the petitioners, forcin rt, the employer-State should its own delay and laches. Th the 2013 ordinance and bringin y, with effect from February 01, y arbitrary. he case of "Mahender Singh others" being CWP No.20006 y the learned Senior counsel fo t, the Hon'ble Single Judge he echnical posts were entitled to t ective of the qualifications to the osts held to be technical by any so entitled to the grant of "techn yees who were working on of neither Matric nor ITI was pr tled to benefits by any judgment back to the respective departme the said cases. he petitioners that the 2014 the force of law, sought to ioners. By virtue of the the grant of "technical pay ed the benefit of "technical the State-employer sat upon ng them to approach this not be allowed to take he action of the State in ng into effect the 2014 Act , 1981, was patently illegal h & others V. State of of 2010 has been strongly or the petitioners. Vide the eld that all the petitioners the grant of "technical pay eir credit. Secondly, persons order of the Hon'ble High nical pay scale". The third the posts for which the rescribed in the Rules, nor t of the Hon'ble High Court

SUBMISSION

13.

P General, appea instructions, p pay scale was against such qualification p It was the pres that were to be post. However pay scale be g were not enti irrespective o benefit of "tec refers to the d Haryana" 19 government ha petitioners wo holders, the ac "technical pa matriculate no employees we deprived of th was never chal

14.

In SCT 499, a C NS ON BEHALF OF RESPON Per contra, Mr. Mittal, learn aring on behalf of the State sub particularly the instruction dated s to be granted only to those p technical posts where th prescribed is matriculation with I scribed qualification for the post e seen and not the qualification o r, certain decisions of the Court granted to the petitioners led to a itled to it were extended the f the qualifications, the petitio chnical pay scale" which shoul decision of the Single Bench i 995 (1) SCT 311 to demonst ad proposed to withdraw the "tec rking as T. Mates, who were ma ction was struck down by the lea ay scale" granted to the emp or ITI diploma holders was uph ere working on the technical he revised pay scales. The decis llenged, and therefore, attained f n the case of "Raj Karan v. Sta Co-ordinate Bench of this Court NDENT-STATE ned Additional Advocate bmitted that in terms of the d 01.05.1990, the modified persons who were working he minimum educational ITI Certificate/Polytechnic. as per the applicable rules, of the person occupying the directing that the technical a situation where those who benefit. In certain cases oners were being granted ld not have been done. He in Labh Singh v. State of trate that when the State chnical pay scale" from the atriculates and ITI diploma arned Single Judge and the ployees who were neither eld, for the reason that the posts and could not be ion in Labh Singh (supra) finality. ate of Haryana", 2002 (4) t relying on Labh Singh's

case (supra) h qualification w working and th scale that was ordinate Benc was prescribed facts there w matriculate wi post even if th such qualificat 1978 as a wor January 01, 19 revised benefit the petitioner Karan (supra) herein do not of Haryana, b the Apex Cour

15.

S 2011 filed ag Haryana" 201 case some of t holders. It was requisite quali any qualificati hold the post o had allowed the writ petition sinc was prescribed for the post, in he employee/petitioner was foun s attached to the post. By the h had held that even though n d for the post in which the petit was no dispute with regard t ith ITI Certificate who would ha he qualification was prescribed. tions, the petitioner was origina rk charge employee and later re

¶987Therefore, the State was not ts already granted to the petition already possessed higher qualif ) the said case is distinguishable possess higher qualification. Th eing Civil Appeal No. 007155 rt vide order dated December 31 Similarly, a Special Leave Pet ainst the decision passed in " 12 (2) SCT 126 was dismissed on the petitioners were neither Ma s held by the Single Bench that th fication to hold the post at the tim ion prescribed subsequently wi or their entitlement for the revise ce no minimum educational n which the employee was nd to be entitled to the pay aforesaid decision, a Co-o educational qualification tioner was working, but on to the petitioner being a ave qualified for a technical It was only on the basis of ally appointed on April 01, egularised with effect from t permitted to withdraw the ner. It was argued that since fication in the case of Raj e on facts as the petitioners he appeal filed by the State of 2005 was dismissed by , 2007.

tition bearing No.2864 of Gurdev Singh v. State of n February 21, 2011. In this atriculate nor I.T.I Diploma he petitioners possessed the me of their recruitment and ll not affect their right to

that they do relying on the was directed t revised could n

16.

It taken in Gurd held that irresp functions of a

17.

matters, the C had dismissed covered by the

¶18further referred of 2012 "Stat wherein it wa 2007 "Jagdish not brought to 2011. Since th notice of the H be resolved by issued directio 2013.

19.

H pending adjud Haryana had not possess the qualification p decisions in Labh Singh (supra) that the pay scales of the post not be withdrawn. t was argued by the learned St dev Singh's case (supra), was po pective of the qualifications, if a particular post, he would be ent Similarly, in LPA 1847 of Coordinate Bench vide its order the appeals filed by the state h e decision of this High Court in R Mr. Mittal, Additional Advoc d to the order dated April 09, 20 te of Haryana and others v. R as noticed that the contrary jud h v. State of Haryana" decided the notice of the Division Bench he judgments taking contrary vie Hon'ble Division Bench, the pre y a larger Bench. Therefore, the ons to constitute a larger Bench, He further submitted that when dication before the Hon'ble Full promulgated the 2013 Ordinan prescribed later on. Thus, a) and Raj Karan (supra), it ts and grades having been tate counsel that the view ossibly not correct, since it an employee discharged the titled to a higher pay scale. 2011 & other connected dated December 10, 2012 holding that the matter was Raj Karan's case (supra). cate General, Haryana, has 013 passed in LPA No.1040 Rajbir Singh and others," dgment in CWP No.241 of d on March 20, 2008, was h deciding LPA No.1847 of ew were not brought to the esent issue was required to e Hon'ble Chief Justice had vide order dated April 09, the aforesaid issues were Bench, the Government of

December 11, Hon'ble Full B that the said r rendered redun Pay Scale betw into force vid the distinction technical posts

¶20Sin rejected by th pending in 20 writ petition w Action. He promulgation the petitioners

21.

B cases where th

(i) of

(ii St

(iv H

(v) St

(v St 2013. In view of such an ordin Bench had disposed of the refe reference had become infructu ndant. Thereafter, the Haryana ( ween Technical and Non-Techn de notification dated March 11, 2 n in pay scales prescribed fo s. nce the representations of some o he departments concerned and 13 when the 2013 ordinance wa was filed challenging the Ordinan contended that there was n of 2013 Ordinance or the subs could not claim "negative equa Before coming into operation of he Court granted relief are stated ) CWP No.7928 of 1993 "Ram K f Haryana"

i) CWP No.10414 of 1993 "L tate of Haryana and others"

ii) CWP No.2032 of 2000 "At tate of Haryana and others"

v) CWP No.1791 of 2002 Haryana"

v) CWP No.18754 of 1991 "Gu tate of Haryana and others"

vi) "CWP No. 5665 of 199 "V tate of Haryana and another" ance coming into force, the erence with the observation ous as the questions were (Abolition of Distinction of nical posts) Act, 2014 came 2014 with an aim to abolish or the technical and non-of the writ petitioners were d some others were kept as promulgated, the instant nce, Act and the Execution othing arbitrary in such sequent 2014 enactment as lity". f the 2013 Ordinance, the herein under: Kishan and others v. State Labh Singh and others v. ttar Singh and another v. "Raj Karan v. State of urdev Singh and others v.

(v v.

(v H

22.

T denied by the the Act of 201

(i) Ja Th or al w m of di

(ii RS di pl th el

23.

A "technical pay petitions:

(i) H (ii St (ii St

vii) "CWP No.20006 of 2010 "M State of Haryana"

viii) LPA No.1847 of 2011 "Na Haryana and others" he cases where the benefit of Court before the promulgation 4 are as stated hereunder:- ) "LPA No.842 of 2011 "State asmer Singh". he Single Bench allowed the rdinate Bench vide judgment and llowed the State's appeal. It wa ere entitled to the modified pa memo dated July 26, 1991 and no f 1200-2040. SLP (C) bearing ismissed by the Apex Court o

021.

i) "RSA No.1174 of 2011 "Uma SA No. 1174 of 2011 "Uma Sha ismissed by the Hon'ble Court laintiff was not working on a te hat he was a matriculate and ITI ligible to a higher pay scale. After coming into existence o y scale" has been granted to th ) "CWP No.16400 of 1995 "H Haryana and others" decided on

i) CWP No. 18287 of 2011 "B tate of Haryana and others" dec

ii) CWP No.10973 of 1993 "R tate of Haryana and others" dec Mahender Singh and others arinder Kumar v. State of f modified pay scale was of the 2013 Ordinance and of Haryana and others v. writ petition but the co-d order dated July 05, 2011 as held that Fitter Coolies ay scale of 950-1400 vide ot to the modified pay scale g No.13392 of 2013 was order dated November 13, Shankar v. HUDA" ankar v. HUDA" was also by holding that since the echnical post, just the fact TI holder, did not make him of the Act of 2014, the he petitioners in following Hardeep Singh v. State of

24.04.2015 Baljit Singh and others v. cided on 02.07.2015 Rangi Ram and others v. cided on 08.05.2015."

24.

In denied to the follows:

(i) St (ii H (ii H (iv v.

(v) H ju (v H pe (v v. (v ot (ix H

(x) H

25.

So Act have been laches. The sam

(i) SC (ii an n some writ petitions where "tec employees, after the 2014 Ac ) "CWP No.18251 of 2014 "B tate of Haryana and others" dec

i) CWP No.26985 of 2014 "S Haryana and others" decided on

ii) CWP No.17474 of 1999 "A Haryana and others" decided on

v) CWP No.8093 of 2023 "Muk State of Haryana and others" d

v) CWP No. 6597 of 2019 "Vij Haryana and others" decided on udgment is pending with order of

vi) CWP No.2364 of 2018 "O Haryana and others" decided ending)

vii) CWP No.8093 of 2023 "Muk State of Haryana and others" d

viii) CWP No.20233 of 2012 "A thers v. State of Haryana

5.10.2024

x) CWP No.9489 of 2020 "Alla D Haryana and others" decided on

x) CWP No.1419 of 2009 "S Haryana and others" decided on ome writ petitions where the c n challenged were dismissed on me are as follows: ) "Bhal Singh v. State of Hary CT 399

i) CWP No.2147 of 2021 "Jaipa nd others" decided on 24.02.202 chnical pay scale" has been ct came into force are as Baljit Singh and others v. cided on 04.09.2014 Sumer Singh v. State of

16.02.2016 Ashok Kumar v. State of

01.02.2016 kesh Kaushik and another decided on 20.04.2023 ijay Pal Singh v. State of n 18.04.2024 (LPA against f stay on recovery) Om Parkash v. State of on 03.05.2023 (review is kesh Kaushik and another decided on 20.04.2023 Ashok Kumar Sharma and and others" decided on Ditta and others v. State of

25.01.2024 Satbir Singh v. State of

26.09.2024 onstitutional vires of 2014 n the ground of delay and yana and others" 2016 (4)

26.

It came into exis with effect from "R Rs

27.

V were placed i qualification f granted the up declared techn twice after 19 Commission Commission w define "techni Polytechnic C various employ the State in no such posts. D employee who technical post, "technical pay qualifications qualifications rulings of Cou

28.

It when an empl t is submitted on behalf of the stence as per the recommendati m January 01, 1986. The said pa Rs.750-940; Rs.775-1025; Rs.80 s.950-1500"

Vide instructions dated August 2 in any of the pay scales where for the post was matriculate w pgraded pay scale of Rs.1200-nical. Furthermore, the State h 990, keeping in view the recom with effect from January 01 with effect from January 01, 200 ical posts" or technical qualific Certificate" a large number of yees approached the High Court ot granting the "technical pay s Due to the decisions of Court o did not have the qualificatio or was promoted to a technical y scale". Furthermore, persons but were recruited on a post also got the benefits of "techni urt.

t is submitted by the learned A loyee is employed on a technic State that five pay scales ion of 4th Pay Commission ay scales are as follows: 00-1150; Rs.950-1400; and 23, 1990, all persons who e the minimum prescribed with ITI Certificate, were -2040/-, as the posts were has revised the pay scales mmendations of the 5th Pay , 1996 and the 6th Pay

¶06Since the State did not cations of "ITI Certificate/ litigations had ensued, as t aggrieved by the action of scales" despite working on t, as illustrated above, an on, but was working on a l post, was held entitled to a s who possessed technical t which required no such ical pay scales" due to the Additional A.G., that only

qualifications, scale". Meetin of Court, a c anomalous situ the technical a for the technic

29.

A to a spate of l ordinance was proviso to Se Section 4 was

30.

It could only be c

ii)

As far as the c have been plea

31.

T counsel on the 1) 2) 3) 4) he would be eligible for the ng only one of the criteria is not completely anomalous situation uation, the State of Haryana felt and non-technical posts and pre cal posts. As simpliciter withdrawal of the i litigations given the previous ch s promulgated followed by the ction 4. Therefore, the decisio neither illegal nor arbitrary. t is submitted that the constitu challenged on the following grou Lack of Legislative Co Legislature and

) Act being violative of Par India. case at hand is concerned, none aded as a ground for challenge to he following judgments have e issue of validity of legislation: ) "Food Corporation of India v Karamchari Sangh"(2012)2 S

) "State of Bihar v. Biha Association" (2008) 7 SCC 23

) "Heena Kausar v. Competent

) "Government of Andhra Pra

(2008)4 SCC 720 benefit of "technical pay enough. Due to the rulings n was created. Due to the t it necessary to distinguish escribe a separate pay scale instructions would have led hequered history, the 2013 2014 Enactment with the on to enact the proviso to utional validity of the Act unds: ompetence of the State t III of the Constitution of e of the above said grounds o the Act of 2014. been cited by the State v. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam SCC 307 ar State +2 Lecturers t Authority" (2008)14 SCC adesh v. P. Laxmi Devi"

32.

It there was no v of 2014 in fav due to orders o pay scale for working on te technical quali argue the com retrospective e 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

¶33T State is that ) "M/s P.G.F Limited v. Union ) "State of M.P v. Rakesh Kohli t has been sought to be argued vested right that was retrospectiv vour of the employees. An anom of Court whereby unqualified pe working on technical posts a echnical posts were also given t ifications. The judgments herein mpetence of the State Legisl effect: ) "Government of Andra P Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd

) "M/s Ujjagar Prints and othe others" (1989) 3 SCC 488

) "Indian Aluminium Co. v. S SC 1431

) "National Agricultural Federation of India Ltd and and others"

) "State of Tamil Nadu v. Sta

(2014)12 SCC 696

) "Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. others" (2017) 1 SCC 283

) "A.Manjula Bhashini v. A.P.Women's Coop. Finance 3143 The third contention that has be the principle of 'equal pay fo n of India" (2015)13 SCC li" (2012)6 SCC 312. on behalf of the State that vely taken away by the Act malous situation was created ersons were getting revised and persons who were not the benefits for having the n below have been cited to ation to enact laws with Pradesh and another v. d." (1975) 2 SCC 274 ers v. Union of India and State of Kerala" AIR 1996 Cooperative Marketing another v. Union of India ate of Kerala and others" . State of Telangana and . Managing Director, Corpn. Ltd" AIR 2010 SC een raised on behalf of the for equal work' cannot be

mechanically the financial mode of app "equal pay fo upon by the S 1) 2) 3) 4)

¶34doctrine of " revised pay employees, th them. The fol 1) 2)

7) y/automatically applied. Variou l capacity, responsibility, edu pointment has to be taken into or equal work". The following j State: ) "Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All Sciences" (1989) 2 SCC 235

) "Shyam Babu Verma v. U SCC 521

) "Deb Narayan Shyam v. St

(2) SCC 286

) "UP State Sugar Corporation Raj Singh and others" 2006 (9 The fourth issue argued by the "negative equality". It has been scale have been erroneously he petitioners cannot claim "neg llowing decisions have been cite ) "Basawraj v. Special Land

(14) SCC 81

) "Union of India v. Kartik AIR SC 3455 ) "Chaman Lal v. State of Pun ) "State of Bihar v. Upendra SCC 65 ) "Punjab State Electricity Bo 2009 (3) SCC 61 ) "State of Orissa v. Mamta ) "Tinku v. State of Haryana no. 8540 of 2024 decided on 13 s considerations regarding ucational qualification and consideration for granting udgments have been relied India Institute of Medical Union Of India" (1994) 2 tate of West Bengal" 2005 n Ltd. and another v. Sant

(9) SCC 82 learned State counsel is the argued that if benefits of a granted to some of the gative equality" at par with ed in that regard: Acquisition Officer" 2013 Chandra Mondal" (2010) njab" 2014 (15) SCC 715 Narayan Singh" 2009 (5) oard v. Jagjiwan Ram" a Mohanty" 2011 (3) SCC a and others" Civil appeal

3.11.2024

ANALYSIS O

35.

Se merit a detaile issue related additional qua consideration i "x em af w be of xx

T extract thereof "x af ac su ad qu al se is in th ar FC ra in po re di em ei pa in OF CASE LAW everal cases have been cited b ed discussion. In Food Corpora to in-service employees bei alifications to gain incentives. T is reproduced herein after: xxx

¶0Whether grant of incentiv mployees of FCI, who acquire fter entering into service and d ho had acquired the same p efore entering the service is inva f Articles 14 and 16 of the Const xx" he answer to said issue was pro f is reproduced herein after: xxx

¶5We are of the opinion t foresaid fact situation and th chieved by issuance of the ubstantial merit in the stand o dopted by FCI is between an em ualification after joining servic lready possessed such qualific ervice. As aforesaid, the main pu to grant an incentive to the em n FCI to motivate them to acquir heir own benefit as well as of th re convinced that the classifica CI between the two sets of em ational nexus to the object so ntroducing the said incentive s oint of view, in our opinion, elation to the in-service employ iscrimination between the in-s mployees recruited with highe ither Article 14 or Article articularly when the incentive i ncrement as "personal pay" to b by the respondents which ation of India (supra), the ing motivated to acquire The short issue that fell for ves only to the in-service professional qualifications denial of the same to those professional qualifications alid in law, being violative itution? ovided in para 15. Relevant that bearing in mind the he objective sought to be said Circular, there is of FCI. The classification mployee obtaining a higher ce and an employee who cation before joining the urpose of this classification mployees already in service re higher qualifications for heir employer viz. FCI. We tion sought to be made by mployees bears a just and ought to be achieved by scheme. Judged from this grant of the incentive in yees, in no way amounts to ervice employees and the er qualification, offending 16 of the Constitution, is in the form of a special

of be pr xx

36.

In upgraded pay time of their a creating an art drawing the b upgraded pay against. Ther from the facts

37.

T difference in p lecturers, who held that the D that there was untrained lectu granting the sa reproduced her "x ap th Si In ex Ar be ap si f promotion to the next higher g earing on the inter se senior romotion to the next higher grad xx" n the present writ petition, the t scale of technical posts were pre appointment. By prescribing the ificial distinction between the em benefits and who were yet to y scale, the petitioners are bei refore, the aforementioned case of the instant case. he issue raised in State of B pay scale between the lecturers, were untrained. In that case ev Division Bench of the High Cou no distinction between trained urers on the other, still the direc ame pay scale was not withdraw rein after: xxx

¶1The above discussion wou ppeal being allowed by setting he Division Bench and by restori ingle Judge upholding the action n the facts and circumstances of ot persuaded to set aside the ord xercise of discretionary jurisdi rticle 136 read with Article 142 ecause of two reasons.

¶2Firstly, when the Appellat ppointed by the State Govern tting Judge of the High Court of grade and thus, having no rity and/or to the future de. technical qualifications for escribed later and not at the e qualification later and by mployees who were already draw the benefits on an ing unfairly discriminated e is clearly distinguishable Bihar (supra) is related to , who were trained and the ven though the Apex Court urt was not right in holding lecturers on one hand and ctions of Division Bench in wn. The relevant extract is ld normally result into the aside the order passed by ing the order of the learned n of the State Government. f the case, however, we are der of the Division Bench in iction of this Court under 2 of the Constitution mainly te Fitment Committee was ment presided over by a

ref un th C un by th St da ca tr an w xx

38.

T be considered difference was sought to be imparting educ not with regard undertake. Th retrospectively

39.

T Narcotic Drug referred to as Section 68-C o Section 68-C p "P C th w tr

eferred to as regards anomaly in ntrained lecturers, the reference he State Government will accept Committee and the Committee niform pay scales to trained as w

¶3Secondly, it was stated in y the untrained lecturers' associ hat after the report of the Fitmen tate Government on 22-01-2001 ated 19-10-2000 for sending unt andidates) for taking training o raining was mandatory in view o nd when uniform pay scales wer ell as untrained lecturers. xx" he issue therein was whether th d at par with the trained lectu s held to have a rational nexus achieved as the important ta cation lay on the shoulders of the d to additional training that the e he issue is with regard to y on the basis of qualifications pr he case of Heena Kausar (su gs and Psychotropic Substanc "NDPS Act"). The validity o of the NDPS Act was under con prior to its amendment stood as f Provided that no property sha Chapter if such property was acq his Act applies before a period of hich he was charged for an raffic." n pay scales to trained and e expressly mentioned that the recommendation of the recommended payment of well as untrained lecturers. the affidavit-in-reply filed iation (the writ petitioners) nt Appellate Committee, the withdrew its earlier order trained lecturers (in-service on the ground that no such of report of the Committee re to be given to trained as he untrained lecturers could urers. The classification or s with the object that was ask of nation building by e teachers. Here the issue is employees were required to withdrawal of benefits rescribed later. upra), was related to the es Act, 1985 (hereinafter f the proviso appended to nsideration. The proviso to follows: all be forfeited under this quired by a person to whom f six years from the date on

T " (1 be ho th (2 in pr go ch

P ch th w ar pu de

40.

T prior to the am said issue was "x st w Th ye w th be th up th be so pr an co he proviso after amendment of S 68-C. Prohibition of holding il 1) As from the commencement o e lawful for any person to who old any illegally acquired prop hrough any other person on his b 2) Where any person holds any n contravention of the provision roperty shall be liable to be overnment in accordance wit hapter: Provided that no property sha hapter if such property was acqu his Act applies, before a period of as arrested or against whom a w rrest has been issued for the unishable under this Act or f etention was issued, as the case m he issue raised therein was whet mendment, was ultra-vires the answered in the terms stated her xxx

¶7The "proviso" appended to tatute book since 1989. The appe ith an order of detention as far he notice under Section 68-D of ear 1995.

¶8Only because at a later st as prescribed for initiation of pr he properties, the same, in our o e sufficient to arrive at a conclu he wrath of Article 14 of the Cons

¶9It is now well settled that v pheld if there exists a valid and herefore, being based upon t earing a reasonable and just r ought to be attained.

¶0In this regard, we may not rinciples. A law may be constitut n individual. There exists a pre onstitutionality of an enactment Section 68-C is as follows: llegally acquired property-of this Chapter, it shall not om this Chapter applies to perty either by himself or behalf. illegally acquired property ns of sub-section (1), such forfeited to the Central th the provisions of this all be forfeited under this uired, by a person to whom of six years from the date he warrant or authorisation of commission of an offence from the date or (sic of) may be." ther the proviso, as it stood Constitution of India. The rein under: o Section 68-C was in the ellant's husband was served r back as in the year 1994. f the Act was issued in the tage, a period of limitation roceedings for forfeiture of opinion, by itself would not usion that the same attracts stitution of India. validity of a statute can be d reasonable classification the substantial distinction relation with the object d tice some well-settled legal tional even though it affects esumption in favour of the

th at ar bu on ev w sa m be th dr w tr th in th co or in xx How the said petitioners wh comprehension

41.

In requirement of a reference u (hereinafter re Pradesh Act 8 of the judgmen

¶3fo as de a un ha xx he legislation is unconstitutiona ttacks it, saves and except the rbitrariness appears on the fa urden of proof in regard to const n the State. The principle of equ very law must have universal a ho, by nature, attainment or ame position.

¶5The statute deals with an matter. The purported object for een enacted must be noticed in hereof. The nexus of huge amou rug trafficking and the purpose f ell known. Harsh laws, not on raffickers but also for preventive herefore are satisfied, were ma ntroduction of strict measures s he drug trafficking by the per ontinue to be invested, inter alia r immovable properties not only n the names of his near relatives. xx " case is applicable to a case of " ho were Class-III and Class-IV n of this Court. n P. Laxmi Devi's case (supra), f a pre-deposit of 50% of the def under Section 47-A of the eferred to as the "Stamp Act" of 1998 was valid. The issue is nt which is reproduced herein un xxx

The writ petition was filed or a declaration that Section 47-s amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 eposit 50% deficit stamp duty as reference to the Collector nconstitutional. By the impugned as declared it unconstitutional. H xx" al is upon the person who e cases where, inter alia, ace of the statute and the titutionality of the statute is uality would not mean that application for all persons circumstances, are in the n economic aspect of the r which such a statute has interpreting the provisions unt of money generated by for which they are spent is nly for punishing the drug detention, if the conditions ade. Necessity was felt for so that money earned from rsons concerned may not a, by purchasing moveable y in his own name but also

"pay parity", sought by the employees, is beyond the , the issue was whether the ficit stamp duty for making Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ") as amended by Andhra s succinctly stated in para 3 nder: d in the high Court praying -A of the Indian Stamp Act 8 which requires a party to s a condition precedent for under Section 47-A is d judgment, the high Court Hence, this appeal.

42.

A Act, as applica

¶6de th of ag an de th m in gu G pa m of

Pr of de co xx

43.

T of Articles 14 in enactment plugging looph held that impo was not a rele discussion rela grant benefits principle of "e mind of this C

44.

In down certain g After the 1998 amendment, Sect able to the State of Andhra Prade

"47-A. Instruments of con ealt with. (1) Where the registeri he Registration Act, 1908, while f conveyance, exchange, gift, pa greement relating to constructio ny immovable property or power evelopment of immovable prope hat the market value of the prop matter of such instrument has no nstrument, or that the value arr uidelines prepared or caused Government from time to time ha arties, he may keep pending suc matter to the Collector for determ f the property and the proper dut rovided that no reference shall fficer unless an amount equa eficit duty arrived at by him oncerned." xx" he Apex Court was of the view and 19 or any other provision o of the aforesaid provision. The holes and for quick realization osition of stamp duty was a tax evant consideration to constraint ating to a taxing statute can be of "technical pay scale" to the e equal pay for equal work" is ourt. n M/s PGF Limited case (supra guidelines for determination of c tion 47-A (1) of the Stamp esh would read as under: nveyance, etc. how to be ing officer appointed under registering any instrument artition, settlement, release, on, development or sale of r of attorney given for sale, erty, has reason to believe perty which is the subject-t been truly set forth in the rived at by him as per the d to be prepared by the as not been adopted by the ch instrument and refer the mination of the market value ty payable thereon: be made by the registering al to fifty per cent of the is deposited by the party that there was no violation of the Constitution of India e amendment was only for of the stamp duty. It was x and question of hardship t a taxing statute. How the equated with the refusal to employee/petitioners on the not comprehensible to the a), the Supreme Court laid

enactment is c guidelines und appellate com joint venture b agricultural la investment" sc appellant com investors or la collected mone aside. In that appellant comp of the SEBI Ac "x en Se in pe w sa be ap pe m or im to ch xx

T reproduced her "x SE

challenged by a litigant. In the s der Section 11-AA of the SEBI A mpany. A contention was raised business of the appellant relating and would not fall within th cheme. Therefore, the stringent mpany, restraining them from c aunching new schemes and dire ey vide the impugned order pas context, the Apex Court held mpany squarely fell within the de ct. Relevant extract is reproduce xxx

¶3Therefore, the paramoun nacting the SEBI Act itself and in ection 11-AA was with a vie nvestors most of whom are poor ersonnel or those who belong to ho seek to invest their hard ear avings in such schemes with a vi enefits or with a fond hope tha ppreciated in course of time. Ce eople who are worst affected ar middle income group who again rder to earn some extra finan mprove their standard of living a o cater to the need of the ed hildren.

xx" he conclusion that the Ape rein after: xxx

8.1 We, therefore, hold EBI Act is constitutionally valid. said case, the vires of SEBI Act were challenged by the d by the appellant that the to sale and development of he category of "collective t directions issued to the collecting money from the ections given to refund the ssed by SEBI should be set-d that the business of the efinition of Section 11-AA ed herein: nt object of parliament n particular the addition of w to protect the gullible r and uneducated or retired o middle income group and rned retirement benefits or iew to earn some sustained at such investment will get ertain other Sections of the re those who belong to the make such investments in ncial benefits and thereby and on very many occasions ducational career of their ex Court had drawn, is that Section 11-AA of the

na sq sc se th lim la

¶6xx

A at Rs.50,00,00 Supreme Cour that judgment of this Court, t

45.

T whether Artic brought in by Article 14 of t in para 4 of th after: "x

¶4at C m th w w re im pe an ca pr so xx

8.2 We also hold that th amely, the sale and developm quarely falls within the definitio cheme under Section 2(1)(ba)re 1-AA (ii) of the SEBI Act and co econd respondent dated 6.12.200 here is no scope to interfere with

8.3 In the light of our mited has to comply with the d ast paragraph of the order of th

12.2002. xx" Accordingly, the appeal was dism 00/- to be deposited by the app rt. How the facts of PGF's case are applicable to the present cas to say the least. he issue in consideration in Rak cle 45 (d) of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp (M.P. Amendment) the Constitution of India. The is he judgment. Relevant extract th xxx

By the M .P.2002 Act, stam ttorney has been prescribed in A Clause (d) thereof prescribes s market value of the property whi he power of attorney when po ithout consideration to a person ife or husband, son or daugh elation to the executant and auth mmovable property situated in M etitioners pleaded, inter alia, th n agent who was a blood relatio arved out in Article 45 (d) was rovision violates Article 14 of ought to create unreasonable cla xx" he activity of PGF Limited, ment of agricultural land on of collective investment ead along with the Section onsequently the order of the 02 is perfectly justified and the same. r above conclusions, PGF directions contained in the he second respondent dated missed with costs assessed ellant with the Registry of (supra) and the rationale in se is perplexing to the mind kesh Kohli's case (supra) is f the Stamp Act that was ) Act, 2002, is violative of ssue is succinctly described hereof is reproduced herein mp duty relating to power of Article 45 of Schedule 1-A. stamp duty at 2% on the ich is the subject matter of ower of attorney is given n other than father, mother, hter, brother or sister in horising such person to sell Madhya Pradesh. The writ hat the distinction between on and who was an outsider legally impermissible. The the Constitution as it has

46.

T State governm cases of indire of attorney to was concluded duty on ostens immovable pro with the objec kith and kin on be without rati the facts of the

¶47T the widening retrospectivel eliminate cer definition. A that the State factory prem fee" on the r no manner of similarly situ retrospective

¶48M the issue wa amounted to Salt Act, 194 he Apex Court held that vide ment had sought to include stam ect and inappropriate mode of tra a person other than kith or kin d that by the amendment, the S sible documents, the real intentio operty. Such imposition of stam ct of Stamp Act and therefore, n one hand and outsiders on the ionale. The aforesaid case has n e present case. he issue in Hindustan Machin g of the definition of the word ly. The meaning of the word " rtain impediments and include After the definition of "house" w e was well within its authority mises but was not correct in the espondent. The above case rela f application to the present case uated employees were sough effect depriving the petitioners. M/s Ujagar Prints and others ca as whether the process of blea "manufacture" within the mean 44 (hereinafter referred to as "the the 2002 amendment the mp duty being payable in ansfer by providing a power n without consideration. It State sought to levy stamp on of which was transfer of mp duty had a direct nexus the classification between e other could not be held to no manner of application to ne Tools (supra) related to d "house" being amended "house" was broadened to "factory" within the said was broadened, it was held y to impose "house tax" at imposition of "permission ating to a taxing statute has , since no benefits given to ht to be withdrawn with ase (supra) is a case where ching, dying, printing etc. ning of Central Excise and e Central Excise Act") prior

to its amendm processed fab the Central appreciated b

¶49In related to val removing the provision per order of the C Electricity Su

¶50T High Court w not covered b principles enu "x

(1 es th

(2 ex an

(3 le an re w

(4 ju de th ment in 1980, so as to attract t brics. How the question of levy o Excise Act is applicable to th by this Court. n Indian Aluminium Company lidation of past illegal levy and e vice pointed out by the High rmitting retention of amount so Court for refund by amendment urcharge (Levy and Collection) A he said case relates to a taxing with regard to the refund of the d by the new Act of 1963 were not unciated in the said judgment are xxx

¶6From a resume of the abo rinciples would emerge: 1) The adjudication of the r ssential judicial function. Legisl orms of conduct or rules which he transactions and require the c 2) The Constitution delineate xercise of the sovereign power b nd judiciary; 3) In a democracy governe egislature exercises the power u nd other companion articles re espective lists in the Seventh S hich includes power to amend th 4) Courts in their concern a udicial power equally must be elicate balance devised by the hree sovereign functionaries. I the levy of excise duty on of tax under Section 2(f) of he present case cannot be y's case (supra) the issue collection of surcharge by h Court and including of a collected, despite the past of the provisions of Kerala Act, 1989. g statute. Directions of the duty for the period that was t challenged. The following e reproduced herein after: ove decisions the following rights of the parties is the lature has to lay down the will govern the parties and court to give effect to them; ed delicate balance in the by the legislature, executive ed by rule of law, the under Articles 245 and 246 ead with the entries in the Schedule to make the law he law. and endeavour to preserve guarded to maintain the e Constitution between the

pe an fu of sm m

(5 un th m

(6 to in th le su Pa

(7 in co re pr en

(8 m ov ju top ch al ex em de le im an re in re le au ba th co

(9 de ermeates to fulfil constitutional n egalitarian social order, unctionaries need free play in the f social progress and order mooth balance built with d maintained; 5) In its anxiety to safegua nnecessary to be overzealous an he judicial preserve invalidating made; 6) The court, therefore, needs o find out: (a) whether the vice p nvalidity suffered by previous la he legal and constitutional requ egislature has competence to va uch validation is consistent with art III of the Constitution. 7) The court does not have nvalid law or to legalise impost ollected or to remove the norm o emedy. These are not judicial f rovince of the legislature. ncroachment on judicial power. 8) In exercising legislative p mere declaration, without anyth verrule, revise or override a judi udicial decision ineffective by e opic within its legislative field hanging its character retrospe ltered conditions are such that th ot have been rendered by the co xisted at the time of declaring th mpowered to give effect to retro eeming date or with effect fro egislature can change the charac mpermissible to permissible tax nswer such character and the l ecover the invalid tax validating nvalid base for recovery from ecovery from the State ineffectu egislature to enact the law wit uthorise its agencies to levy an asis, make the imposition of levy he tax made valid, notwithstand ourt or the direction given for re 9) The consistent thread th ecisions of this Court is that the l objectives of establishing the respective sovereign eir joints so that the march remains unimpeded. The delicacy must always be ard judicial power, it is d conjure up incursion into g the valid law competently s to carefully scan the law pointed out by the court and aw is cured complying with uirements; (b) whether the lidate the law; (c) whether h the rights guaranteed in the power to validate an t of tax illegally made and of invalidation or provide a functions but the exclusive Therefore, they are not power, the legislature by hing more, cannot directly icial decision. It can render enacting valid law on the fundamentally altering or ectively. The changed or he previous decision would ourt, if those conditions had he law as invalid. It is also ospective legislation with a om a particular date. The cter of the tax or duty from but the tax or levy should legislature is competent to such a tax on removing the the subject or render the ual. It is competent for the th retrospective effect and nd collect the tax on that y collected and recovery of ding the declaration by the covery thereof. hat runs through all the

ov it of to xx

¶51In Federation's of retrospecti 1961. The qu profits and g agricultural Societies, Di Cooperative amending the 1968 so as t burden impo unconstitution burden was m present case.

¶52In drawn litigat regarding the were referred Supreme Co Conservation Legislature, f was unconsti powers, since verrule the decision or make a d but has power to make the decis f the constitution and the legisla o do the same. xx" n National Agricultural s case (supra), the question arose ive operation of certain provisio uestion was whether the exemp gains made by the cooperative produce, was applicable to istrict Cooperative Societies or Societies (Apex Societies). The e provisions of Section 80 P(2) ( to include the term "grown b osed on Apex Societies for th nal, since the desire and exten minimal. The said case has no m

n State of Tamil Nadu's case (su tion between the two states of e water level in the Mullaperiy d to a Five Judge Constitutional B ourt was whether the Kera n (Amendment) Act, 2006 ena fixing and limiting the full reser itutional being in violation of th e only three weeks earlier, the direction as not binding on sion consistent with the law ature must have competence [Emphasis supplied] Cooperative Marketing e with regard to the validity ons of the Income Tax Act, ption granted in respect of societies by marketing of the Village Cooperative r to the members of State e Apex Court held that by

(a)(iii) retrospectively from by" the new levy/financial he past 30 years was not nt of enforceable financial manner of application to the upra), there had been long-f Kerala and Tamil Nadu yar dam, and the disputes Bench. The issue before the ala Irrigation and Water acted by the Kerala State rvoir level (FRL) to 136 ft, he doctrine of separation of

judgment "M of India", re the Mullaper behalf of the Act was bey insofar as it a State Reorga under Article power to trav Entry 17 Lis legislative co "x co C M of (V pe th H C of co tr to ca re co ha re ta be on ca la co pe re re

Mullaperiyar Environmental P eported in (2006) 3 SCC 643, p riyar Dam to be raised up to 14 petitioner-State of Tamil Nadu, yond the legislative competenc affects the Mullaperiyar Dam, in anisation Act, 1956 which is a es 3 and 4 of the Constitution. T verse all legislative entries in a t II. The view of the Constituti ompetence is set out hereinafter: xxx

¶00One of the leading cases of t ompetence vis-à-vis decision Cotton [Shri Prithvi Cotton Mil Municipality, (1969) 2 SCC 283] f the Gujarat Imposition of Validation) Act, 1963 was as etitioners. The Validation Act ha he decision of this Cour Hargovindas [Patel Gordhandas Commr., AIR 1963 SC 1742 : (19 f the Validation Act provided tha ontained in any judgment, decr ribunal or any other authority, no o have been assessed by a mu apital value of a building or land ecovered by the municipality ommencement of the Validation ave been invalidly assessed, ecovered and the imposition, co ax so assessed shall be valid an een always valid and shall not b n the ground that the assessmen apital value of the building or l aw and accordingly any tax ommencement of the Validatio eriod prior to such commence ecovered before such commence ecovered in accordance with the Protection Forum v. Union permitted the water level in 2 ft. It was also argued on , that the 2006 Amendment ce of the State of Kerala n view of Section 108 of the a law made by Parliament The same conferred plenary all the three lists including ional Bench with regard to this Court on the legislative of the Court is Prithvi lls Ltd. v. Broach Borough ] . In that case, the validity Taxes by Municipalities ssailed on behalf of the ad to be enacted in view of rt in Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas v. Municipal 964) 2 SCR 608] . Section 3 at notwithstanding anything ree or order of a court or o tax assessed or purported unicipality on the basis of d and imposed, collected or at any time before the n Act shall be deemed to , imposed, collected or ollection or recovery of the nd shall be deemed to have be called in question merely nt of the tax on the basis of land was not authorised by so assessed before the on Act and leviable for a ment but not collected or ement may be collected or

Pr (1 la co w th pr ta C Bo pa

"4 by in be eff th if ill de fo ju ex co th ci im or th be ca ta ju in re by th m co bi m th in ad an th co su ev th

¶01The Constitution Bench in rithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broa 1969) 2 SCC 283] exposited that aw depended upon whether the ompetence which it claims ove hether in making the validation he courts had found in the existin rovisions in the validating law fo axes. In the words of the Co Cotton case [Shri Prithvi Cot orough Municipality, (1969) 2 S ara 4)

¶4… When a legislature sets ou y a court to be illegally collected nvalid law, the cause for ineffec e removed before validation c ffectively. The most important c he legislature must possess the po f it does not, the action must e legal. Granted legislative compe eclare merely that the decision or that is tantamount to reversing udicial power which the legisla xercise. A court's decision mus onditions on which it is based ar hat the decision could not have ircumstances. Ordinarily, a cour mposed because the power to ta r the rules or both are invalid o he jurisdiction. Validation of a t e done only if the grounds of apable of being removed and ar ax thus made legal. Sometimes th urisdiction where jurisdiction nvested before. Sometimes this etrospectively a valid and legal y fiction making the tax already he re-enacted law. Sometimes th meaning and interpretation of the ollected and by legislative fiat inding upon courts. The legisla method or all of them and while i he effect of the earlier decision o neffective after the change of the dopted it must be within the com nd legal and adequate to attain he legislature has the power ov ompetence to make a valid law uch a valid law and make it re ven past transactions. The val herefore, depends upon whethe Prithvi Cotton case [Shri ach Borough Municipality, t the validity of a validating e legislature possesses the er the subject-matter and it removed the defect which ng law and made adequate for a valid imposition of the onstitution Bench: (Prithvi tton Mills Ltd. v. Broach SCC 283] , SCC pp. 286-87, t to validate a tax declared d under an ineffective or an ctiveness or invalidity must can be said to take place condition, of course, is that ower to impose the tax, for, ver remain ineffective and etence, it is not sufficient to of the Court shall not bind g the decision in exercise of ature does not possess or st always bind unless the re so fundamentally altered e been given in the altered rt holds a tax to be invalidly ax is wanting or the statute or do not sufficiently create tax so declared illegal may illegality or invalidity are re in fact removed and the his is done by providing for had not been properly s is done by re-enacting taxing provision and then dy collected to stand under he legislature gives its own e law under which tax was t makes the new meaning ature may follow any one it does so it may neutralise of the court which becomes e law. Whichever method is mpetence of the legislature the object of validation. If ver the subject-matter and w, it can at any time make trospectively so as to bind lidity of a validating law,

th w w ad im xx

53.

T separation of hereinafter: "xxx

¶126opin India betw brief

¶126pow entre doct cons rule pow its s sche dema three sens sepa the from expr

¶126legis basi pow Cons

¶126legis cons 14 o sepa equa inva pow Artic he competence which it claims o hether in making the validati hich the courts had found in th dequate provisions in the va mposition of the tax. xx" he view of the Constitutiona powers doctrine under the Ind x On deep reflection of the abo nion, the constitutional princip an Constitution relating to s ween the legislature, executive f, be summarised thus:

¶1Even without express provisio ers, the doctrine of separati enched principle in the Const trine of separation of powers stitutional structure and it is an e of law. In other words, the doc er though not expressly engraft sweep, operation and visibility a eme of Indian Constitution. C arcation, without drawing form e organs—legislature, executive se, even in the absence of e aration of powers, the separatio legislature, executive and judi m the Constitutions of the cou ress provision for separation of p

¶2Independence of courts fro slature is fundamental to the rule c tenets of Indian Constitution. er is a significant constitutiona stitution of India.

¶3Separation of powers betwe slature, executive and judiciary— sequence of principles of equali of the Constitution of India. A aration of judicial power may a ality under Article 14. Stated thu lidated on the basis of breach ers since such breach is negat cle 14 of the Constitution. over the subject-matter and ion it removes the defect he existing law and makes alidating law for a valid [Emphasis Supplied] al Bench with regard to dian Constitution is set out ove discussion, in our ples in the context of separation of powers and judiciary may, in on of the separation of ion of powers is an titution of India. The s informs the Indian essential constituent of ctrine of separation of ted in the Constitution, are apparent from the Constitution has made mal lines between the e and judiciary. In that express provision for on of powers between iciary is not different untries which contain powers. om the executive and e of law and one of the Separation of judicial al principle under the een three organs—the —is also nothing but a ty enshrined in Article Accordingly, breach of amount to negation of us, a legislation can be h of the separation of

¶126Cour mad Legi cons ensh

¶126final decla effec the d know alwa so fu been

¶126matt any retro depe comp whet whic

¶126seem is sh proc doct lega proc legis aske

(i) D inter

(ii) whet alrea

(iii) deal final If th and suffi with unco xxx"

¶4The superior judiciary (High rt) is empowered by the Constit de by the legislature (Pa islatures) void if it is found to stitutional limitations or if it hrined in Part III of the Constitut

¶5The doctrine of separation of l judgments of the courts. Th are any decision of a court of la ct. It can, however, pass an am defects pointed out by a court of w of it aliunde. In other words, a ays bind unless the conditions on fundamentally altered that the de n given in the altered circumstan

¶6If the legislature has the po ter and competence to make a va time make such a validatin ospective. The validity of a vali ends upon whether the legis petence which it claims over t ther in making the validation law ch the courts had found in the ex

¶7The law enacted by the legis m to be within its competence bu hown as an attempt to interf cess, such law may be invalidat trine of separation of powers. l effect of the law on a jud ceeding must be examined clos slative prescription or direction ed are: Does the legislative prescription rfere with the judicial functions? Is the legislation targeted at ther impugned law requires its ady finally decided? What are the terms of law; th ls and the nature of the judgm lity? e answer to Questions (i) and (i the consideration of aspects n iciently establishes that the imp the judicial functions, the Cour onstitutional. " h Courts and Supreme tution to declare a law rliament and State have transgressed the infringed the rights tion. f powers applies to the The legislature cannot aw to be void or of no mending Act to remedy of law or on coming to a court's decision must n which it is based are ecision could not have nces. ower over the subject-alidating law, it can at ng law and make it idating law, therefore, slature possesses the the subject-matter and w it removes the defect xisting law. slature may apparently ut yet in substance if it fere with the judicial ted being in breach of In such situation, the dgment or a judicial sely, having regard to n. The questions to be or legislative direction ? the decided case or application to a case e issues with which it ment that has attained

(ii) is in the affirmative noted in Question (iii) pugned law interferes

54.

T decision on f employing do "precautionary "competence between the legislature can validating law changing its c where a judici of fact. Und neutralise the e by means of e A decision tha facts is not op rendered, oper appropriate pro to be not a val of the Apex C cited case in fa

¶55In cannot be pe Constitution of

56.

In the legislature thereby remov he Apex Court held that a pla fact cannot be altered by a le ctrines or principles such as "p y principle", "larger safe of the State Legislature to two States". The constitution n render judicial decision ine w within its legislative field fun character retrospectively would ial decision has been rendered b er the pretence of power, th effect of the judgment given afte evidence/materials placed by the at disposes of the matter by giv pen to change by legislature. A rates and remains in force until oceedings. Thus, the 2006 (Ame lidation enactment as it sought t Court which was constitutional act aids the case of the Petitioner n the present case by enacting th ermitted to act in violation o f India. n Cheviti Venkanna Yadav's ca e has the power to retrospecti ve the causes for invalidity of suc in and simple judicial egislative decision by public trust doctrine", ty principle" and, override agreements nal principle that the effective by enacting ndamentally altering or d have no application by recording a finding he legislature cannot er ascertainment of fact e parties to the dispute. ving findings upon the A final judgment, once altered by the court in endment) Act was held to nullify the judgment ly impermissible. The rs. the 2014 Act, the State of Article 14 of the ase (supra), it was held that vely amend the laws and

amount to statu issue related t Board and the carved out from

¶57T Thereafter, a retrospective The Apex Co to pass the la or illegality d where arbitra class of emp "equal pay f Constitution

¶58T whether a pe worker in dif regularised o made in the Services and 1994 (herein provisions of constitutional regard to reg March 25, 19 Act. Relevant utory over-ruling of a Court's ju to alteration of the number of m eir tenure on the board when th m the State of Andhra Pradesh. he High Court had initially stru an amendment to the Act was effect, regarding reconstitution ourt held that as long as the legi aw, they had the power to remov due to which the law has struc arily a distinction was sought to ployees giving a go-bye to the for equal work" and in violat of India. he issue in A.Manjula Bhas erson employed on daily wage fferent departments of the gove on completion of five years and Andhra Pradesh (Regulation o d Rationalisation of Staff Patter nafter referred to as "the 1994 f the Constitution of India. Th l validity of the amendment a gularisation of such employees 993 as specified in the first provi t part is set out herein under: udgment by legislature. The members of the marketing he State of Telangana was uck down the said change. s brought into force with of the Market Committee. slature had the competence ve the grounds of invalidity ck down. It was not a case o be drawn within the same e well settled principle of tion of Article 14 of the shini's case (supra) was e basis or as a contingent ernment were entitled to be d whether the amendments of Appointments to Public rn and Pay Structure) Act, Act") were ultra vires the he Apex Court upheld the and issued directions with s upto the cut off date of iso to Section 7 of the 1994

"x f e t r c

i.e Of on da in C A co de fu an of Se re ag ha el Se un xx

T of the emplo had admittedl the basis of c scale.

¶59In doctrine of employees ar discharging s equality in m xxx

¶92Undisputedly, the Ordinanc first exercise of legislative powe employment on daily wages and temporary basis and, at the s recruitment in public services consistent with the doctrine of eq 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶3The 1994 Act was enforced w e. the date on which the Ordin Official Gazette. Therefore, that n the policy of regularisation ated 22-4-1994, which was issue n exercise of its executive powe Constitution. When that policy w ct in the form of the proviso to ould not have fixed any date o etermining the eligibility of d ulfilled the requirement of 5 ye ny other date had been fixed fo f daily-wage employees for th ection 7, the object sought to b 994 Act would have been defeate ecruitment could not have bee gainst the sanctioned posts and ave occupied all the posts. The 5-11-1993 prescribed by the legi ligibility of daily-wage employe ection 7 of the 1994 Act canno nreasonable, irrational or discri xx" he instant case has no relation to yees or of cut-off date as the se ly been regularised and the discr cut-off date as some juniors wer n Mewa Ram Kanojia's case (s "equal pay for equal work" re holding same rank and perfor similar duties and responsibilit matters relating to scale of pay. T ce issued in 1993 was the er by the State to prohibit to restrict appointments on same time, streamline the by adopting a procedure quality embodied in Articles with effect from 25-11-1993 nance was published in the date had a direct bearing circulated vide the G.O. ed by the State Government er under Article 162 of the was engrafted in the 1994 o Section 7, the legislature other than 25-11-1993 for daily-wage employees who ears' continuous service. If r counting 5 years' service he purpose of proviso to e achieved by enacting the ed, inasmuch as the regular en made for appointment d back door entrants would erefore, the cut-off date i.e. islature for determining the ees and others covered by ot be dubbed as arbitrary, iminatory. o the issue of regularisation ervice of all the petitioners rimination was not made on re granted an upgraded pay supra), it was held that the " is applicable when the rming similar functions and ties, and are being denied

hearing thera therapist" an petitioner fail performed du

¶60It between two the pay comm difference, th for the post. Admittedly, duties and res paid at a high

¶61In pharmacists service. It w pharmacists Erroneously,

¶62A inducted, ther which they w members of t the petitioner were perform

¶63Fu commission pharmacists d apist and wanted the pay sca nd "audiologist". There, the A led to place any material before uties and functions corresponding t was further held that there w posts on the basis of education mission who was in a better posit he volume of work, reliability a The petitioner was held not to the petitioners herein have be sponsibilities as that of their cou her pay scale. n Shyam Babu Verma's case (s whose pay scales were reduc was pointed out that the petit possessing qualifications m a wrong pay scale had been gran At the time when the petitioners re was no prescribed minimum q were engaged. Moreover, there w the pay commission evaluating th rs vis-à-vis their counter parts as med as admittedly duties perform urthermore, in Shyam Babu's had made a distinction betwe depending upon whether they p ale prescribed for "speech Apex Court held that the e the Court showing that he g to that of an audiologist. were qualitative differences nal qualification and it was tion to judge the qualitative and responsibility required o be entitled to any relief. een discharging the same unter parts, who were being supra), the petitioners were ced after several years of tioners were not qualified mentioned in the Act. nted to them. s in the present case were qualification to the posts in was also no issue regarding he work, nature of duties of s same duties and functions med are the same. case (supra) the third pay een the two categories of

mentioned un such distincti case.

¶64In "Amins" in W "Surveyors". work of surv difference in parts in the pr

¶65In educational q for differenc educational q employees in the time of a educational q appointed.

66.

In Court was cor having been s condonation o Court held tha Constitution o extending the hand. Article 1 positive aspect nder Sections 31 and 32 of the ion has been made by the pay n Deb Narayan Shyam's case ( West Bengal could not claim pa The qualifications for two po veyors was technical in nature the work discharged by the pe resent case. n Sant Raj Singh's case (supr qualification could be considered e in payment of wages. At the qualifications were laid down as n different grades. It is reiterated appointment there was no stipu qualification for the posts in w n Basawraj's case (supra) the is rrect in condoning the huge dela shown in some cases and dism of delay in other cases. In such at it was a settled proposition of of India was not meant to perpe wrong decisions made in some 14 does not envisage "negative t. The relief given to similarly si e Pharmacy Act, 1948. No commission in the present (supra) it was held that the arity of pay scale with the osts were different and the e. Admittedly, there is no etitioners and their counter ra) the issue was whether d to be the relevant criteria e time of appointment, the s a criterion for classifying d that in the present case, at ulation as to the minimum which the petitioners were ssue was whether the High ay without sufficient cause missing the applications for h circumstances, the Apex f law that Article 14 of the etuate illegality or fraud by cases to the other cases at equality" but it only has a

or by mistake benefit.

67.

T granted to und time of appoi qualifications Therefore, cor some of the em petitioners we with them.

68.

In with regard to recruited with by the employ were disenga regularisation, considering th the respondent commensurate

69.

T merited no int was only appl already been d no order for th present writ pe considered her could not confer any legal righ he present case is not the one, w deserving persons due to fraud o ntment there was no stipulatio of matriculation or ITI for gran rrectly benefits of "technical p mployees relying on governmen re denied. The petitioners are o n Kartik Chandra Mandal's ca o regularisation of the casual out following a proper procedu yment exchange. The Tribunal aged on the day when the came into force could not claim he fact that they belonged to wea ts were directed to absorb the pe e with their qualifications. he High Court held that the ord terference. The Apex Court hel licable to the persons in service disengaged could not urge discri heir absorption could be passed. etitions as grievances of only re re. ht to others to get the same where illegal benefits were or inadvertence. During the on with regard to essential nt of "technical pay scale". pay scales" were given to nt instructions whereas the only claiming "pay parity" ase (supra), the issue was employees who had been ure and not been sponsored held that the workers who office memorandum for m regularisation. However, aker section of the society, etitioners on a suitable post der passed by the Tribunal d that office memorandum e and the persons who had imination against them and Such is not the case in the

¶70I was shocked th of pension w defendants in t Gurdaspur and relevant extrac "x as pr C C th im is st in K w C Ra Fo Fo , t it ab

in su ac co xx

¶71It the Fish Farm of retiral be department o under the So In Chaman Lal's case (supra), t hat without impleading the State was sought against it. No relie the suit, who were the Fish Farm d the Chief Executive Officer ct is reproduced hereinafter: xxx

¶3We fail to understand how s it is a settled legal propos rovisions of Section 79 and Ord Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Constitution of India, if a relief is he Union of India, the State or mpleaded as a party. In case it is not maintainable for want of n tands fortified by the jud n Collector v. Bagathi Krishna Krishna Rao, (2010) 6 SCC 427 : herein after placing reliance on Court particularly, Ranje ailway [Ranjeet Mal v. Northern 84 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 164] orests v. Collector [Chief orests v. Collector, (2003) 3 SCC this Court held that if the relief is necessary for the plaintiff to bsence thereof the suit itself wou

¶5Thus, in view of the fact tha n the case of Charanjit Lal seem uit which itself was not mainta ccept the submission advanced ounsel for the appellant. xx"

t was held that the services rend mers Development Agency was enefits as the said agency wa of the government. The agency ocieties Registration Act, and th the Hon'ble Supreme Court e of Punjab as a party, relief ef was sought against the mers Development Agency, r of the said agency. The w the suit was maintainable sition that in view of the der 1 Rules 9 and 27 of the 8 and Article 300 of the sought against the State or r Union of India must be s not so impleaded, the suit necessary party. This view dgment of this Court Rao [Collector v. Bagathi : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] , n earlier judgments of this eet Mal v. Northern n Railway, (1977) 1 SCC and Chief Conservator of Conservator of C 472 : AIR 2003 SC 1805] is sought against the State, o implead the State and in uld not be maintainable. at the judgment and decree ms to be collusive and in a ainable, we are unable to by Shri Garg, the learned dered by the appellant with not to be counted for grant s neither the State nor a y was a society registered herefore, only the period of

his service w appellant wa fisheries and collusive dec rejected and the appellant.

¶72In petitioners re Haryana nor employees w government i is completely are being gra and the seni tenable or cog

¶73In whether the e being non-sa sending requi reinstated in termination o Single Judge had not chall Leave Petitio holding that door entrants with the society could not be g as absorbed with the departm dairy development, Punjab. The cree in respect of another employ held that no "negative equality . n the present case, neither w endering service with the transp is there any reliance on a col who have been granted "technica instructions by the State of Hary y distinguishable on facts. This anted a higher pay scale without a ors are being deprived of the gent reason. n Upendra Narayan Singh's ca employees engaged in Group-III anctioned post and without issu isition for employment to Emplo service. The Single Judge of th orders. The Division Bench up e holding that in two similar ca enged the orders passed by the S on filed before the Supreme Cou the High Court was not justifi . It further held that the Division granted pension. Later the ment of animal husbandry, e appellant tried to rely on a yee, which the Apex Court y" could be prayed for, by was there any dispute to port department of State of llusive decree between the al pay scale" by relying on yana. Thus, the case at hand is a case where the juniors any additional qualification same without any legally ase (supra), the issue was I and IV posts, such posts uing any advertisement, or oyment Exchange could be he High Court quashed the pheld the order of learned ases, the State government Single Judge. In the Special urt, the appeal was allowed fied in reinstating the back

refusing to appointments Patent Appea

¶74It entrants have There is no petitioners w fallen for co same pre-rev parts who ha could have continue the of the petitio 2013 Ordinan the represent or the writ pe said date. Qu authorities co rights due to the negative.

¶75In 'regular serv or whether th employee cou fact that in so in complianc examine the illegality and s on the ground that the State al in respect of other employees. t is again reiterated that this is n e procured jobs due to favouritis allegation of incompetence o who were regular employees. T onsideration is whether the peti vised upgraded pay scale as wa ad same qualification. The que introduced a proviso to Sectio grant of "technical pay scale" b oners only because their cases nce came into force, and deny t ations of the petitioners were p etitions were pending before the uestion that falls for consideration ould be permitted to deprive the sheer incidence of time. The ans

n Jagjiwan Ram's case (supra vice' meant the services rendered he services rendered as tempora uld be considered as regular se ome other case, benefits had been ce of a Court's order, could n legitimacy of the initial had failed to file Letters

not a case where back door sm, nepotism or corruption. or inefficiency against the The only question that has itioners are entitled to the as granted to their counter estion is whether the State on 4 of the 2014 Act to benefits to the counter parts were examined before the the petitioners the same as ending with the authorities Hon'ble High Court on the n is whether the respondent e petitioners of their vested swer obviously has to be in a), the issue was whether d after regular appointment ary, ad hoc or work charge ervice. It was held that the n granted to few employees

interpretation promotion.

¶76A has been cit employees an bound prom them.

¶77In the eligibility Orissa could appointment governmenta respondent w The post of candidates re

¶78A been relied o petitioners w minimum qua scale" at the

¶79T compassionat death of the appellant had whereas the g minor depend n of the relevant provisions of th Again this Court fails to underst ted since the employees here nd there is no issue with rega otional scales/promotional incr n Mamta Mohanty's case (supr y criteria for appointing lecture d be relaxed. It was held tha of teaching staff had to be adher l and non-aided private col was appointed without following lecturer in Chemistry was neith quisitioned from the Employmen Again, this Court fails to underst on, as there is no allegation th were made without following the alifications were prescribed for time of appointment of the petiti he case of Tinku (supra) te appointment and the applica e appellant's father-a deceas d become a major after 11 yea government instructions dated M dant on a deceased government e he scheme, for time bound tand why the said decision ein are admittedly regular ard to the benefits of time rements being granted to ra), the issue was whether ers in affiliated colleges in at minimum eligibility for red to, even in case of non-lleges. In that case, the g the procedure prescribed. her advertised nor was the nt Exchange. tand why the said case has hat the appointment of the e prescribed procedure. No the grant of "technical pay ioners. deals with the issue of able policy at the time of sed police constable. The ars of death of his father, March 22, 1999 permitted a

of ex-gratia c majority with government e

¶80In and purport o bereaved fam appointment.

¶81H scale" can b was being so and the que circumstance

¶82In idea of equa positivity bas sanctity of la state to perpe person, an in were entertain against tenets law being cau

¶83T present case appointments responsibiliti reason has be compassionate appointment only hin a period of 03 years from employee. n such circumstances, the Apex of such policies were to provide mily and there was no veste

How the case of regular employe be compared to a case where c ought after 11 years of the death estion of "negative equality" es is beyond the comprehension o n Tinku's case (supra), the Ape ality enshrined in Article 14 w sed on law. It could be invoked aw. No direction, therefore, cou etuate any illegality or irregularit ndividual or a group of individu ned and directions were issued, t s of justice but also would negat usality culminating in anarchy an here is no question of illegality where the employees were app s and were admittedly perform es of the "technical pay scale een cited for not granting the pe y if the dependant attained m the date of the death of x Court held that the scope e immediate succour to the ed right to compassionate ees wanting "technical pay compassionate appointment h of the deceased employee being discussed in such of this Court. ex Court held that the very was a concept clothed in d to enforce a claim having uld be issued mandating a ty committed in favour of a uals. In case, illegal claims the same would not only be te its ethos, resulting in the nd lawlessness. y being perpetuated in the pointed by way of regular ming the same duties and e" holders and no cogent

scale of tech ordinance an to withdraw t DISCUSSIO

¶84Upo the grievance Sections 3 and herein below: "3 se va en un in se St po se qu Po

¶4po N in da an w w

be pa of be D a Xx

hnical posts, apart from the p d the subsequent 2014 enactmen the benefits already granted by w ON n perusal of the prayers in the w of the petitioners is primarily d 4 of the 2014 Act. The releva

¶3Notwithstanding anything ervice rules, instructions etc., arious posts in different Service ntitled to get the pay scales pres nder the relevant service nstructions issued from time to t erving or has served on any pos tate, shall be entitled to a highe ossessing a technical qualific erving or having served on a po ualification is/was of technical olytechnic or Non-Matric with IT

The entry at serial number osts in the annexure to No.1/54/2PR(FD)-82, dated 30.03 n annexure A to instructions bea ated 23.08.1990. No.6/23/3PR nd No.6/83/2009-3PR (FD), da ithdrawn and shall be deemed ith effect from the date of their c Provided that all those p een granted unconditionally t ay scale and drawing the same f the Haryana (Abolition of etween Technical and Non-Tec 013 (Haryana Ordinance No. December, 2013, shall continue t measure personal to them. Xxx" promulgation of the 2013 nt being brought into force way of instructions. writ petition, it appears that y against the enactment of ant Sections are reproduced contrary contained in any all persons serving on e under the State shall be scribed for those posts only rules, notifications and time and no person who is st in any Service under the er pay scale on account of cation, or on account of st for which the prescribed nature i.e Matric with ITI/ TI/Polytechnic. r 3 under common category o instructions bearing

3.1982, at serial number 40 aring No.6/23/3PR(FD)- 88

(FD)-88 dated 26.07.1991 ted 09.08.2010 are hereby d to have been withdrawn coming into force: persons who had already the up-graded pre-revised before date of notification Distinction of Pay Scale chnical Posts) Ordinance, .6 of 2013) viz. the 10th

¶85T be read in c reproduced h "S

" Po is

¶86Fr qualification with ITI/Po appointment appointed/eng the post in wh to them. By e employees a prescribed q Furthermore, serving at a p be suddenly s

¶87O statutory req general propo way of judic in case of provisions of he said two Sections cannot be conjunction with Section 2 (h) herein after: Section 2 (h) "Technical qualification" me olytechnic or Non-Matric with prescribed for appointment to th xx" rom the perusal of the said sectio would mean Matric with ITI/P olytechnic whichever qualific to a "post" in the service. W gaged there was no technical q hich they were appointed. So, th enactment of Section 3, the ben at the time of appointment to qualification could not be so employees with technical qua post which may not be on a "tech sought to be withdrawn. One of the primary rules for quirement is that it must be re osition, the doctrine of harmonio ial pronouncements. Statutory i any apparent conflict between f a written statute, they should be read in isolation and has to of the Act. The same is eans Matric with ITI/ ITI/Polytechnic whichever he post in the Services. on, it appears that technical Polytechnic or Non-Matric cation is prescribed for When the petitioners were qualification prescribed for he benefits cannot be denied nefits that were given to the the posts which had no ought to be taken away. alifications as per the Act hnical pay scale" could not the interpretation of any ead as a whole. From this ous construction evolved by interpretation requires, that n the different parts and

them become judgment of t Mysore", AIR law which ar religious den guaranteed un law protected temple to all speaking for words:

H Constitution, t be interpreted of every Hindu under Article 2 to Article 25(2

88.

T 2(h) of the 20 rights of the p which are now

89. V

30.03.1982, 2

1 Durga Das Basu C 249-251. es nugatory1. A beneficial refe the Supreme Court in "Venkatar R 1958 SC 255. In the said case, rose before the Supreme Court, nomination to manage its own af nder Article 26(b) is subject to, d by Article 25(2)(b), i.e., throw l classes and sections of Hindu the Court elaborated on the "The rule of construction is w are in an enactment two pro reconciled with each other, the that, if possible, effect should what is known as the rule of int Harmonising the two conflic the Constitutional Bench held th in an absolute sense, it would r u, to enter into a religious institu 25(2)(b). Therefore, Article 26(b 2)(b). herefore, Section 3 has to be re 014 Act, and be given a harmo petitioners got crystallised unde w sought to be withdrawn. Vide enactment of Section 4

23.08.1990, 26.07.1991 and 09.

Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th erence maybe made to the ramana Devaru v. State of , the substantial question of was whether the right of a ffairs in matters of religion and can be controlled by, a wing open a Hindu public us. Venkatarama Ayyar J. doctrine, in the following well settled that when there ovisions which cannot be ey should be so interpreted be given to both. This is terpretation." cting provisions of the hat if Article 26(b) were to render nugatory of the right tution of a public character, b) must, be read as subject ead conjointly with Section onious interpretation as the er government instructions 4, the instructions dated

08.2010 were sought to be edition (New Delhi: Wadhwa, 2007),

withdrawn r Significantly, promulgation December 10 such an artifi despite purpo discernible fr on behalf of t

¶90T be given effe read as a who Act would b where technic They would and not for p qualification.

¶91A also needs to employees w scale and we "shall contin Nowhere doe cannot be gra pending with the Court o circumstance retrospectively without any , the benefits if granted to n of the 2013 ordinance wh 0, 2013, were sought to be con icial distinction sought to be ma orted withdrawal of the afores rom the scheme of the Act, nor the State-respondents. o the mind of this Court, a harm ct to different provisions in the A ole. Therefore, it is held that Se be valid for new recruits who cal qualifications have been pres be eligible for drawing the pay performing duties relating to th . As far as the proviso to Section be harmoniously construed. The who had already been granted ere drawing the same before the nue to draw the pay scales as a p es the proviso states that the upg anted to the employees whose r h the concerned department or f Law. To the mind of this es of writ petitions of certain emp cogent or valid reason. o the employees before hich came into effect on ntinued. The legal basis for ade between the employees said instructions is neither r from the arguments made monious interpretation has to Act and the Act needs to be ections 3 and 4 of the 2014 are appointed to the posts scribed as per Section 2(h). y scale attached to the post he post with over or under n 4 is concerned, the same e proviso stipulates that the upgraded pre-revised pay e date of 2013 notification personal measure to them." raded pre-revised pay scale representations were either writs were pending before Court, due to fortuitous

in time, the retrospectivel employees ca

¶92T service law qualifications pay. In case "stepped up" notified by t No. DOPT-1 Personnel, Pu and Training,

vested right of the petitioners ly. By sheer incidence of time annot be put to grave prejudice o his Court cannot lose sight of th that a senior working on the s and discharging similar duties such anomaly is created, the ". The fundamental rules regard the Office Memorandum dated 667551701810 issued by Govern ublic Grievances and Pensions , is reproduced herein below: "xxx I. GENERAL INSTRUCTION In order to remove the anomal promoted or appointed to a

01.01.2016 drawing lower pay Government servant junior to h promoted or appointed subseq post, the pay of the senior G higher post should be stepped pay as fixed for the junior G higher post. The stepping up s from the date of promotion or Government servant and will b conditions, namely:

II. ESSENTIAL CONDITION

(a) both the junior and the se should belong to the sam which they have been pro same cadre;

(b) the Pay Level in the Pay higher posts in which they should be identical; could not be taken away a similarly situate class of or disadvantage. e fundamental principles of e same post having same s cannot be given a lesser pay of senior needs to be ding stepping up of pay as September 13, 2022, vide nment of India, Ministry of s Department of Personnel NS ly of a Government servant higher post on or after y in that post than another him in the lower grade and quently to another identical Government servant in the up to a figure equal to the Government servant in that should be done with effect r appointment of the junior be subject to the following NS enior Government servants me cadre and the posts in moted are identical in the y Matrix of the lower and

(c) the anomaly is directly as a the provisions of Fundame with Rule 13 of CCS(RP)Ru the junior officer was d existing pay structure than advance increments grante this sub rule should not be of the senior officer.

III. DATE OF NEXT INCRE OF STEPPING UP OF PAY

The order relating to re-fixati officer in accordance with clau Fundamental Rule 27 and th entitled to the next increme required qualifying service with fixation of pay.

IV. EVENTS / CASES WHE PAY IS NOT ADMISSIBLE

The following instances/even more pay than seniors do no therefore, stepping up of pay such events:

(a) Where a senior proceeds which results in postpone Increment in the lower p starts drawing less pay th grade itself. He, therefore, promotion even though he m the higher grade than his ju

(b) If a senior forgoes/refuses junior being promoted/app earlier and the junior dr senior.

(c) If the senior is on deputatio ad-hoc promotion in the drawn by the junior due to regular promotion followin in the higher posts vis-à-vis in strict sense of the term;

(d) If a senior joins the higher for whatsoever reasons, w a result of the application of ental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) read ules, 2016. For example, if drawing more pay in the the senior by virtue of any ed to him, the provisions of invoked to step up the pay EMENT AFTER GRANT ion of the pay of the senior use (i) shall be issued under he senior officer shall be ent on completion of the h effect from the date of re-ERE STEPPING UP OF nts wherein juniors draw ot constitute anomaly and, will not be admissible in on Extra Ordinary Leave ement of his Date of Next post and consequently he an his junior in the lower cannot claim pay parity on may be promoted earlier to unior(s); s promotion leading to his pointed to the higher post raws higher pay than the on while junior avails of the cadre, the increased pay o ad hoc/officiating and/or ng such ad hoc promotion s senior, is not an anomaly r post later than the junior,

less pay than the junior. In claim stepping up of pay at

(d) If a senior is appointed la lower post itself whereby h than the junior, in such ca claim pay parity in the hig pay than his junior tho promoted earlier to the high

(e) Where an employee is prom higher post, his pay is fixed drawn by him in the lower read with Rule 13 of CCS(R his longer length of service may get fixed at a higher s direct recruit appointed to whose pay is fixed under example a Senior Secret promotion to the post of

(ASO) gets his pay fixed reference to the pay dra whereas the pay of ASO(D CCS(RP)Rules, 2016 at the Cell in the Level, applicab appointed. In such a cas cannot claim pay parity w junior ASO.

(f) Where a senior is appointe basis and is drawing less p appointed in the same cad hoc basis subsequently, th parity with reference to th the ad-hoc officiating se reversible and also since fu are not available on ad-h regular promotion followin without break.

(h) Where a junior gets mo increments earned on acqui

V. PROCEDURE FOR RE STEPPING UP OF PAY TO D

Proposals on pay fixation, pa referred to DOPT, through Department concerned, giving chronological order with all re flagged and specifying the p n such cases, senior cannot par with that of his junior. ater than the junior in the he is in receipt of lesser pay ases also the senior cannot gher post if he draws less ough he may have been her post. moted from lower post to a d with reference to the pay r post under FR22(I)(a) (1)

(RP)Rules, 2016 and due to in the lower grade, his pay stage than that of a senior the same higher grade and different set of rules. For tariat Assistant (SSA) on f Assistant Section Officer under FR 22(I)(a)(1) with awn in the post of SSA, DR) is fixed under Rule 8 of e minimum pay or the first ble to ASO to which he is se, the senior ASO (DR) with that of the promotee ed in higher post on ad-hoc pay than his junior who is dre and in same post on ad e senior cannot claim pay he pay of that junior since ervice in higher post is ull benefits of FR22(I)(a)(I) hoc promotion but only on ng such ad-hoc promotion re pay due to additional iring higher qualifications. EFERRING CASES OF DOPT ay protection, etc. shall be administrative Ministry/ g full facts of the case in elevant documents properly

ambiguity. It needs to be ensur out in the checklist are availa appreciation of the case.

CHECK LIST FOR CASES PAY

¶1The primary reason for r

¶2Whether the condition of terms of 1OM No. 4/3/

26.10.2018. If no, which con

¶3Copies of promotion order

¶4Comparative pay fixation s junior invariably indicating on the same reference dat joining the service and the fixation by these officers fro

¶5Whether promotion is on basis;

¶6Whether senior and junior b

¶7Whether the pay scale of both employees is identical;

¶8Cause of anomaly i.e. FR reason, specify other reason

¶9Views/opinion of IFU/IF Ministry;

¶10Specific views of FA of the the point of reference;

¶112 All the references should the approval of the Secret Ministry/Department.

12.1 While sending the proposa the Joint Secretary/Director (P id) who can be contacted for also to be indicated.

Xxx" red that all the points listed able in the file for proper OF STEPPING UP OF request of stepping up; of stepping up fulfilled in /2017-Estt. (Pay-I) dated ndition is not fulfilled; r of the senior and junior; statement of the senior and the pay of both the officers tes since the date of their 'option' exercised for pay m time to time. regular basis or ad-hoc belong to same cadre; f lower and higher post of R 22(I)(a)(1) or any other n; FD of the administrative e administrative Ministry on d be made to DOP&T with tary of the Administrative al, the name, designation of (Phone number and e-mail

¶93A "stepping-up others v. C.R Supreme Cou herein below " co In re

"(2 pro of a rem app low ser app dec hig as f up app foll

(a) the pro cad

(b) wh

The acc FR on fro

A beneficial reference may be ma p" of pay passed by Apex Co R. Madhava Murthy and anot urt Cases 183 , relevant extra : "xxx

¶0The High Court has there onsidered FR 22 and the order is ndia on removal of anomaly by eads as under:- 22) Removal of anomaly by stepp omotion drawing less pay than h application of FR 22-C. [Now F move the anomaly of a govern pointed to a higher post on or wer rate of pay in that post rvant junior to him in the lowe pointed subsequently to another cided that in such cases the pay gher post should be stepped up t fixed for the junior officer in tha should be done with effect from pointment of the junior officer lowing conditions, namely: Both the junior and senior e same cadre and the posts i omoted or appointed should be dre;

The scales of pay of the ich they are entitled to draw pay

The anomaly should be d plication of FR-22-C. For exam st the junior officer draws from pay than the senior by virt crements, the above provisions w the pay of the senior officer. e orders refixing the pay o cordance with the above provis R-27. The next increment of the s completion of the requisite qua m the date of refixation of pay." ade to a judgment allowing ourt "Union of India and ther" reported in (2022) 6 act whereof is reproduced efore rightly relied and/or ssued by the Government of stepping up of pay, which ping up of pay of Senior on his junior — (a) As a result FR 22 (I)(a)(1)]. In order to ment servant promoted or after 1-4-1961 drawing a than another government er grade and promoted or r identical post, it has been of the senior officer in the to a figure equal to the pay at higher post. The stepping m the date of promotion or and will be subject to the r officers should belong to in which they have been identical and in the same lower and higher posts in y should be identical; directly as a result of the mple, if even in the lower time to time a higher rate tue of grant of advance will not be invoked to step of the senior officers in sions shall be issued under senior officer will be drawn alifying service with effect "

m an w ci di or ha st co N xx

¶94In reported in temporary em regular emplo with minimu employees ho work". Relev below: "x

to w em ca fa em si by Th pa su in fo w re em ag ca co co

¶1Therefore, it was a case w more pay on account of upgradat nd there was an anomaly and th as required to be stepped up. ircumstances of the case, the irected the appellants herein t riginal writ petitioners keeping as been granted to the juniors tarted drawing lesser pay than omplete agreement with the view No interference of this Court is ca xx" n "State of Punjab and others v

(2017)1 SCC 148, the Apex mployees discharged equal duties oyees, still it would vest in them um of the pay scale of regula olding same post on the groun vant extract of the said judgm xxx

¶0Having traversed the legal o the application of the principl ork", in relation to temporar mployees, ad hoc appointees, asual basis, contractual employ actor that requires our deter mployees concerned (before th milar duties and responsibilities y regular employees holding the his exercise would require arameters of the principle of "e ummarised by us in para 42 abov nstant aspect of the matter is co or us to record the factual posit as fairly acknowledged by epresenting the State of Punja mployees in the present bunch gainst posts which were also adre/establishment. It was also ourse of their employment, t oncerned were being randomly d where a junior was drawing tion under the ACP Scheme herefore, the pay of senior . Hence, in the facts and e High Court has rightly to step up the pay of the in view of pay scale which s from the date they have n their juniors. We are in w taken by the High Court. alled for. v. Jagjit Singh and others" Court held that even if s and responsibilities as the m right to claim wages at par arly appointed government nd of "equal pay for equal ment is reproduced herein l parameters with reference le of "equal pay for equal ry employees (daily-wage employees appointed on yees and the like), the sole rmination is, whether the is Court), were rendering s as were being discharged same/corresponding posts. the application of the equal pay for equal work" ve. However, insofar as the oncerned, it is not difficult tion. We say so, because it y the learned counsel ab, that all the temporary of appeals were appointed available in the regular o accepted that during the the temporary employees

an as ho sa fr do te sa di on th pa "e te rig sc th

xxx

¶95In employees. T have a vested this Court ho Distinction o Act, 2014 is said enactme Section 4 to held that not of the upgrad also the emp aforesaid pre granted the prospectively

nd responsibilities which at s ssigned to regular employees. L olding substantive posts were al ame work which was assigned rom time to time. There is, th oubt, that the duties and respon emporary employees in the prese ame as were being discharged b ot the case of the appellants tha id not possess the qualifications p n regular basis. Furthermore, it hat any of the temporary employe ay parity on any of the principles 2 hereinabove. There can be no equal pay for equal work" wou emporary employees concerned, ght to claim wages on a par wi cale of regularly engaged gove he same post. x" n the present case, the petitioners Therefore, this Court has no h d right to claim "equal pay for olds that Sections 3 and 4 of of Pay Scale between Technical applicable prospectively qua ap ent. It is imperative to widen th do complete justice between t only the employees who were al ded pre-revised scales will be gra ployees like the petitioners w e-revised upgraded "technical same. The provisions of the y from the date of its coming into some point in time were ikewise, regular employees lso posted to discharge the d to temporary employees erefore, no room for any sibilities discharged by the ent set of appeals were the by regular employees. It is t the respondent employees prescribed for appointment is not the case of the State ees would not be entitled to s summarised by us in para doubt, that the principle of uld be applicable to all the so as to vest in them the ith the minimum of the pay ernment employees holding [Emphasis supplied] s are all regularly appointed esitation to hold that they equal work". Accordingly, the Haryana (Abolition of l and Non-Technical posts) ppointments made after the he scope of the proviso to the parties. Therefore, it is lready enjoying the benefits anted the said pay scale but who were not granted the pay scales" will also be e Act will be applicable

CONCLUSI

¶96In C

(i) The disp and

(ii) How pro on recr qua

(iii) The with regu

¶97A arrears of suc petitioners an However, the three years p actual date o to the employ judgment.

¶98W petitions are d

¶99Pe accordingly.

(ANUPINDER JUD

MARCH 25, shalini

Whether speaking/ Whether reportab ION Conclusion, it is held as follows: e legislative competence of the S pute and therefore the constituti d 4 of the 2014 Act is upheld. wever, Sections 3 and 4 of the 2 spectively from the date the 20 December 10, 2013 and will b ruits who were appointed to t alifications have been prescribed e pay of the petitioners is require h their juniors from the da ularised in service. Accordingly, the authorities are ch difference in pay from the d nd pay the same along with in e interest @ 6% per annum shall prior to filing of the writ petition f disbursement of the arrears. T yees concerned, within three mo With the directions aforesaid, disposed of. ending application(s) if any, sh R SINGH GREWAL) DGE

2025 /reasoned :

ble :

: State Government is not in ional validity of Sections 3 2014 Act will be applicable 013 Ordinance was notified be applicable qua the new the posts where technical as per Section 2(h). ed to be "stepped up" at par ate the petitioners were e directed to compute the date of regularisation of the nterest @ 6% per annum. l be restricted to a period of ns and paid till the time of The same shall be disbursed onths from the date of this the aforementioned writ hall also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI)

Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.