The High Court dismissed an intra-Court appeal against the Single Judge's order rejecting a petition for pay parity between Police Constables deputed as drivers and Civil Department drivers. Citing the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Jagat Singh, the Court held there is no basis for interference.
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.
LPA-1253-2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-1253-2009 Date of Decision: July 16, 2019
Baljit Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE.
Present: Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
KRISHNA MURARI, C.J. (ORAL)
This intra-Court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking parity in the pay scale with the drivers working in Civil Department of the State of Haryana.
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order impugned, finding that there is no equivalence between the petitioner/appellant and those working in the Civil Department and, as such, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ does not apply.
The same issue, whether parity of pay can be given to Constables in Police Department of Haryana Government, who were deputed to work either as Wireless Operators, Drivers or Messengers in the Telecom Wing of the Police Department, which was applicable to the
PRASHANT KAPOOR 2019.07.18 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2
LPA-1253-2009
drivers employed in the Civil Department of the Haryana Government, travelled up to Hon’ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6328 of 1995
(State of Haryana and others v. Jagat Singh and others) . Vide judgment
and order dated 13.08.1997, Hon’ble the Apex Court finding that there were vital differences between the two cadres and they cannot be compared with each other for the purpose of equal pay for equal work, set aside the order passed by this Court granting pay parity.
The issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Jagat Singh (supra) and there is hardly any scope of interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE
| (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE |
||
|---|---|---|
| July 16, 2019 | ||
| Pkapoor | Whether Speaking/Reasoned: | YES / NO |
| Whether Reportable: | YES / NO |
PRASHANT KAPOOR 2019.07.18 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the intra-Court appeal against the Single Judge's dismissal of the petition seeking pay parity for Constables with Civil Department drivers is maintainable.
Whether the Apex Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Jagat Singh bars the grant of equal pay for equal work between the Police Constable and Civil Department Driver cadres.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others v. Jagat Singh and othersApplied¶23
Civil Appeal No. 6328 of 1995
Baljit Singh
State of Haryana
KRISHNA MURARI
ARUN PALLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
