Allowed

Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2013CWP/2603/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner employees of a cooperative society sought revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, arguing parity with government employees who received them then. The High Court held that financial stringency cannot justify denying fundamental rights when benefits are eventually granted, awarding the benefit from 1.1.1986.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioners were held entitled to revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, instead of 1.1.1994.

Dalip Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.W.P. No.2603 of 1999 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.2603 of 1999 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 17.9.2013

¶4

Dalip Singh and others

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri M.S.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Shri Nilesh Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Punjab.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioners pray for grant of revised pay scales as per the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986.

¶14

The recommendations were made applicable to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1994 and their solitary grievance is that the same should have been made available to them with effect from 1.1.1986 at par with the employees of the financial institutions under the Cooperative Societies Act. The question that the employees of the Cooperative Bank are getting this pay scale with effect from 1986 is evident from Annexure P-1 appended to the petition.

¶15

The reply filed by the MILKFED would reveal that the benefit of Dass GhanshyamThird Pay Commission has been made admissible to the petitioners, but from a 2013.09.23 11:19 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶16

C.W.P. No.2603 of 1999 -2-

¶17

later date i.e. 1.1.1994 instead of 1.1.986 and the ground pleaded for adopting such a date is a financial stringency.

¶18

It is not entirely the case of the respondents that they being a society, having their own rules and instructions, would not be amenable to the notification and decisions taken by the State Government or the other cooperative institutions.

¶19

If that had been the case of the respondents, then there would have been some justification in accepting their plea and denying the benefit to the petitioners of the Third Pay Commission, to the petitioners from an early date but once the respondents make a benefit available and grant parity to their employees in terms of pay structure as admissible to the government employees on the basis of the recommendations of a pay commission, then merely because there is financial stringency, would not be a just plea to deny the claim of the petitioners.

¶20

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar 2003(3) R.S.J. 42 has observed as follows :-

¶21

“64. Financial stringency may not be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. This Court has been highlighting this aspect in the matters concerning fundamental rights and maintenance of ecology. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Entitlement Kendra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , AIR 1987 SC 359 : (1986) Supp. SCC 517, Municipal Council, Ratlam, (1980) 4 SCC 162 and B.L.Wadhera v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2969. In All India Imam Organization and others v. Union of India and others , (1993) 3 SCC 584, this Court held :

¶22

“ ... Much was argued on behalf of the Union and the Wakf Boards that their financial position was not such

¶23

Dass Ghanshyam 2013.09.23 11:19 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶24

C.W.P. No.2603 of 1999 -3-

¶25

that they can meet the obligations of paying the Imams as they are being paid in the State of Punjab. It was also urged that the number of mosques is so large that it would entail heavy expenditure which the Boards of different State would not be able to bear. We do not find any correlation between the two. Financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above fundamental right of a citizen. If the Boards have been entrusted with the responsibility of supervising and administering the Wakf then it is their duty to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty namely of leading community prayer in a mosque the very purpose for which it is created.”

¶26

In State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees and others , (1995) 4 SCC 507, it was opined :

¶27

“16. The constitutional mandate to the State, as upheld by this Court in Unni Krishnan case – to provide free education to the children up to the age of fourteen – cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity.”

¶28

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the respondents have unjustifiably withheld this benefit from the petitioners with effect from 1986.

¶29

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 instead of 1994, as has

¶30

Dass Ghanshyam 2013.09.23 11:19 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶31

C.W.P. No.2603 of 1999 -4-

¶32

been granted by the respondents.

¶33

(MAHESH GROVER) September 17, 2013 JUDGE GD

¶34

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

¶35

Dass Ghanshyam 2013.09.23 11:19 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh