Fourteen-year-old writ petition for equal pay and Class-III status denied due to change in position since filing; petition disposed with liberty to challenge 2010 decision granting retrospective relief.
Petition disposed; liberty granted to assail the 6th September 2010 decision in appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7784 of 1996
Date of decision: 20th September, 2010
Devi Dutt Sharma and others
… Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises and others
… Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate with
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State.
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition has been preferred by 19 work mistries employed in the Haryana Warehousing Corporation. They have projected a grievance that for discharge of similar duties, the work mistries employed by the Govt. of Haryana in its Public Works Department B&R (Public Health) have been designated as Class-III Employees and placed in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1400, whereas the respondent-Corporation is treating the petitioners as Class-IV Employees and granting pay-scale of Rs.800-1150.
The petitioners had earlier approached this Court and had prayed that for equal work, equal pay should accrue to them. This Court directed the respondent-Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioners. It was represented by the petitioners that the respondent-
2
Civil Writ Petition No.7784 of 1996
Corporation, vide Annexure P-1, had passed a resolution that the employees of Haryana Warehousing Corporation shall be entitled to the same scale of pay, which was being paid to the employees of Govt. of Haryana. This plea was negated by the Corporation by saying that the petitioners were not performing Supervisory duties and were under the overall control of the Junior Engineers, whereas the work mistries in PWD B&R have been designated as Work Supervisors and they were performing duties which were supervisory in nature. It was further stated that due to this distinction, work mistries employed in the Corporation have been treated as Class IV Employees.
Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon various communications (Annexures P/5 A and P/5 B) of the respondentCorporation to say that this stand of the Corporation is not justifiable on the facts of the case, as the petitioners were performing the supervisory duties. Learned counsel have further submitted that faced with the communications (Annexures P/5 A and P/5 B), the Standing Committee on Public Enterprises, in its meeting held on 6th September, 2010 at 10.30 a.m., found merit in the contention of the petitioners and decided to place them in Class-III service and grant them the same scale of pay as was granted to the employees of the State Government. However, it is stated that this decision has not been made applicable retrospectively and therefore, the petitioners have been denied their rightful due. Counsel for the petitioners have further stated that once the respondents have found merit in the contention of the petitioners that they were entitled to be placed at par with the work mistries/work supervisors working in the Department of the State Govt., then they should have also been granted the same scale of pay and Class-III status from the same date.
Before this Court could venture into this argument, counsel for the parties have stated that since the present writ petition was filed in
3
Civil Writ Petition No.7784 of 1996
the year 1996, therefore, the pleadings are not in consonance with the decision taken on 6th September, 2010. Counsel for the petitioners have prayed that they be granted liberty to assail the decision dated 6th September, 2010 in an appropriate forum to justify their claim that they are entitled to be given same pay-scale retrospectively with status of Class-III Employees.
In view of the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, the present petition stands disposed of, with liberty aforesaid.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 20, 2010 rps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether work mistries in Haryana Warehousing Corporation entitled to Class-III status and pay scale equal to PWD B&R employees for similar duties.
Devi Dutt Sharma and others
Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises and others
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
