Petitioners sought extra payment for working Saturdays, claiming discrimination against office staff. The court held that the Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984, prescribe specific holidays, making the claim untenable.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit; no extra payment granted for working on Saturdays.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2011
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 8.11.2012
Roop Lal and others
.. Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. P. K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 3.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2011
(2)
Karamchari Service Rules, 1984 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rule 17 thereof prescribes the holidays to which each member of the service is entitled to. It is clearly mentioned therein that the employees governed by the aforesaid Rules are entitled to one paid holiday in a week and three national holidays i.e. January 26, August 15 and October 2, and four other holidays at the option of the members of the service on any of the festivals specified in Appendix-C.
“1. Short Title : These rules may be called the Punjab Municipal Safai Karamchari Service Rules, 1984. They shall come into force at once.
They shall apply to the person specified in Appendix 'A'.
xx xx xx
Civil Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2011
(3)
(c) four other holidays at the option of the member on any of festivals specified in Appendix 'C'.”
xx xx xx
APPENDIX 'A'
[See rules 1 (3) and 3]
| Serial No. | Designation of Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | Safai Karamchari/ Sewerman |
| 2 | Sanitary Mate/ Sanitary Jamadar |
“So far as this question is concerned unless there is any express provision in the municipal bye laws requiring all the staff members to have six days working per week, in our view, it would not be open to the respondent Municipal Committees to deny the benefit of nonworking Saturdays only to those staff members who have because of the exigencies of service, to discharge their duties at octroi check posts or barriers rather than in the offices. But that would require a further question as to whether, at the relevant time at which the concerned employees like the appellants have actually worked on Saturdays, their colleagues in the offices had enjoyed such holidays and further whether the bye-laws of the Municipal Committees required the employees, by way
Civil Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2011
(4)
of their service conditions, to discharge their duties for six days in a week and, therefore, it was open to the municipal authorities, looking to the exigencies and pressure of work, to give some additional concession to only those office staff members who would have been permitted not to come for work on any Saturdays. Therefore, all that we can lay down in the present proceedings is to the effect that if the appellants, at the relevant time at which they claim to have earned the right to enjoy holidays falling on Saturdays were made to work while their colleagues similarly situated like them, working in the offices of the Municipal Committees were given the benefit of such holidays and when there were no bye-laws requiring the employees to work for 6 days in a week, then they would be entitled to be given monetary compensation for the working Saturdays by grant of extra wages for each of the working Saturdays on which they are shown to have discharged their duties.” (emphasis applied)”
(Refer to Reporter)
8.11.2012 vs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners entitled to extra payment for working on Saturdays despite existing service rules prescribing paid holidays.
Whether Supreme Court decision in Municipal Employees Union case applies where specific service rules govern the number of holidays.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others vs State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶14
Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1997 – Municipal Employees Union (Regd.) Sirhind and others vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 15.3.2000
Niranjan Dass and others vs The State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶15
CWP No. 1539 of 1987 – Niranjan Dass and others vs The State of Punjab and another, decided on 29.3.2006
Roop Lal and others
State of Punjab and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
