Parveen Kumar and Ors. Vs Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu and Anr.

¶1

1

¶2

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶3

[204-7 cases +206-2 cases]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

[204-1]	COCP-38 Date ofD 82-2024 (O&M) ecision : 26.05.2026
ParveenK umar and others	versus …Petitioners
Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh S	andhu anda nother ….Respondents
[204-2]	COCP-35 47-2024 (O&M)
AmarjitS ingh and others	versus …Petitioners
Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh S	andhu anda nother ….Respondents
[204-3]	COCP-38 94-2024 (O&M)
Raj Kuma r and others	versus …Petitioners
Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh S	andhu anda nother ….Respondents
[204-4]	COCP-85 3-2025 (O&M)
Gurwinde r Singh and others	versus …Petitioners
Professor (Dr.) Karamjeet Sin	gh, Vice Ch ancellor,
Guru Nan ak Dev University,	Amritsar and another ….Respondents
[204-5]	COCP-17 85-2025 (O&M)
Tajinderji t and others	versus …Petitioners
Karamjit Singh and another	….Respondents
[204-6]	COCP-17 59-2025 (O&M)
SubhashC hander and others	versus …Petitioners
Prof. Kara njeet Singh Kahlon	and another ….Respondents

¶6

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶7

2

¶8

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶9

[204-7] CM-21527-CII-2025 CM-21528-CII-2025 CM-20089-CII-2024 in COCP-4024-2024 Kulwant S ingh and others …Petitioners versus Jaspal Si n gh Sandhu and another ….Respondents [206-1] COCP-1782-2025 (O&M) Kuldip S i ngh and another …Petitioners versus Karamjit Singh and another ….Respondents [206-2] COCP-1958-2025 (O&M) Parveen K umar and others …Petitioners versus Prof. Kar a mjit Singh and another ….Respondents

¶10

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶11

Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior A d vocate with Ms.Malvi Aggarwal, Advoc a te for the petitioners in COCP-3882-2024, COCP - 3547-2024 CM-21528-CII-202 5 , COCP-4024-2024, COCP-1 7 85-2025, COCP-1759-2025, COCP-1782-2025 &COCP- 1 958-2025.

¶12

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advo c ate for the petitioners in COCP-853-2025.

¶13

Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate fo r the respondents. ****

¶14

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

[1] The issue involved in the p resent contempt petitions is a s to ‘Whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Writ Cou r t or not?’

¶16

[2] The petitioners are employ e es working with the GNDU. A

¶17

RAJNEESH SHARMA [2] 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶18

3

¶19

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶20

bunch of writ petitions was filed wherein the petitioners sought equal p ay for equal work. The Writ Court relying u pon the ratio of law laid dow n by Supreme Court in ‘ State of Punjab vers u s Jagjit Singh ’, reported as 2 0 17 (1) SCC 1 48 , allowed the writ petitions, o bserving as under:-

¶21

“3. Learned Senior counsel a s also the other learned counsel, in the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the respondent-University in differe n t capacities for more than 10 yea r s and are thus entitled to minimum of pay scale including DA, grade pa y , etc. and regularization, their c a ses being squarely covered by the judgments in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 14 8 , followed by this Court in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-19238-2013, decided on 26.02.2024 an d Avtar Singh and others vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar through its Registrar, CWP-128 9 2-1996, decided on 01.12.2023.

¶22

4. The relevant portion of Amrish Sharma (supra), reads thus:-

¶23

“35. In the case in h a nd, the respondent in 2006 frame d regularization policy which was followed by 2011 Policy. As p e r Policy of 2006 read with p olicy of 2011, an employee who h a s completed service of 10 y e ars by the end of December’ 2006 i s eligible for regular appo i ntment. All the petitioners are Cla s s ‘D’ employees. Few petitioners, as confirmed in differe n t affidavits, during the p endency of litigation have bee n regularized and remaini n g have not been regularized due t o lack of permanent/sanctio n ed pasts. The respondent in 2023 h a s framed another policy w h ereby dying cadre has been create d . There was no minimum qualification at the time of the i r appointment. They wit h out interruption are working f o r decades. They are ass i gned duties of Class IV. Cour t s repeatedly have held t h at long experience is as good a s minimum qualification especially when an employee i s effectively discharging his duties. Thus, it would not be justifie d , on the ground of minim u m qualification, to deny benefit o f regularization to an empl o yee who is working for decades and i s assigned duties of class I V i.e. lowest rung. xx xx xx 40. From the conjoi n t reading of judgments of Supreme

¶24

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶25

4

¶26

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶27

Court in Jagjit Singh (sup r a), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma De v i (supra) and Ilmo Devi (su p ra), it can be culled out that part time employees who are wor k ing for few hours cannot claim pa y parity. Daily wage wor k ers who work at par with regul a r employees though cann o t claim pay parity with regul a r employees yet are entitle d to minimum pay. The minimum pa y includes dearness allow a nce and grade pay. The petitione r s herein are working for l a st 30-40 years and they are not pa r t timer whereas they are daily wager and work at par with regular employees which is more evident from the fact that fe w of their colleagues ha v e already been absorbed again s t sanctioned posts. The m ajority of the petitioners are n o t absorbed due to non-avai l ability of sanctioned/regular posts o r they had not completed service of 10 years at the time o f introduction of 2006 Poli c y. The petitioners who despite havin g rendered a quite long ser v ice, may be more than 30 years, if n o t regularized, deserve at least minimum pay which includ e s minimum of pay scale pl u s dearness allowance and grade pa y . Accordingly, it is conclu d ed that Respondent-State is liable to pay minimum of pay scal e plus dearness allowance and gra d e pay to all those petit i oners who neither have been/a r e regularized nor are part ti m er. 41. The respondent i n its reply and during the course o f arguments has pleaded t h at petitioners are paid monthly lum p sum amount which is m o re than rate prescribed by Depu ty Commissioner and minimum of pay scale available to regul a r employees. The dichot o my between figure of State an d Petitioners has erupted due to non-inclusion of dearne s s allowance and grade pay . The State in view of above referre d judgments is bound to a dd DA and GP while calculatin g minimum of pay scale. 42. Keeping in mind f inancial burden on State excheque r , binding precedents, right s of petitioners as well as equity, th i s Court hereby holds and g i ves its imprimatur to the State to pa y minimum of pay scale plu s dearness allowance and grade pay t o all those employees who are not part timers and have complete d service of 10 years.

¶28

xx xx xx

¶29

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶30

5

¶31

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶32

Conclusion:

¶33

47. In the wake of ab o ve discussion and findings, this Cou r t comes to conclusion as be l ow: i) This Court in th e normal course cannot ask State to create or sanction posts. ii) The petitioners wh o had completed service of 10 years b y the end of December’ 20 0 6, either at present are in service o r have already retired, ar e entitled to regular post and th ey cannot be denied regul a rization on the ground of lack o f sanctioned post or minimum education qualification. To avoi d burden on State exchequ e r, it is clarified that from the deeme d date of their regularizatio n , they shall be entitled to minimum o f pay scale plus dearness a l lowance and grade pay till the date o f this order and thereafter r e gular pay scale. iii) The petitioners w ho are still in service but did n o t complete service of 10 y ears by the end of December’ 2006 would form part of dyin g cadre created by 2023 Policy. The State, in view of long s e rvice of these employees, would n o t insist for minimum qu a lification. They from the date o f completing service of 10 y ears would be entitled to minimum o f pay scale plus dearness a llowance plus grade pay till the da t e they are regularized in ter m s of 2023 Policy. iv) The petitioners wh o did not complete service of 10 yea r s by the end of Decembe r ’ 2006 and during the pendency o f present litigation have su p erannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of p a y scale plus dearness allowance an d grade pay from the date o f completing service of 10 years till the date of their retirement or death. v) The petitioners w h o have already been regularized b y 31.12.2016 shall not be entitled to any additional financi a l benefit because they are a l ready getting higher amount of sala ry for last couple of years. vi) The respondent-S t ate shall not be liable to pay intere s t on arrears arising on acc o unt of re-fixation of pay.”

¶34

5. The operative portion of Avtar S ingh and others(supra) reads thus:“4. In view of above, since admittedly the petitioners No.2 to 6 have been working wit h the respondent-University for mo r e than 10 years on daily wa g e basis and were therefore entitled t o

¶35

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶36

6

¶37

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶38

be regularized, the resp o ndents have not denied the date o f appointment of the petitio n ers as mentioned by them in para 2 o f the Writ Petition. Havin g been appointed in the years 199 0 , 1991, 1992 and 1993, t his Court is of the view that the representation made by p etitioners (Annexure P-2) shall be examined in light of the j u dgment in the case of Uma Devi an d Others (Supra) and all th e persons who have been working f o r 10 years or more shall be regularized in the aforesaid terms an d shall also be paid the re g ular pay scale. Arrears shall also be calculated and paid to the m .”

¶39

6. All learned counsel, on instructions candidly state that the arrears to the petitioners be pa i d only from 20.03.2017, the date o n which the Syndicate of Guru Na n ak Dev University took a decision to accept the judgment in Jagjit Si n gh (supra) and adopt Punjab Adhoc Contractual, Daily Wages, Temp o rary, Work Charged and Outsource d Employees Welfare Act 2016.

¶40

7. Learned counsel appeari n g for the University as also for Stat e , have been unable to controvert t he factual position and draw out an y distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contra ry law.

¶41

8. In view of the aforesaid, t he present writ petitions are dispose d of in terms of Amrish Sharma an d Avtar Singh (supra), and arrears be paid as per the statement made b y the petitioners. ”

¶42

[3] Despite the aforesaid directi o ns, the respondents did not co m ply with the o rder and introduced a conditio n that the employee shall be elig i ble for mini m um pay scale only after havin g worked for 10 years. This C o urt vide Or d er dated 25.03.2025 obse r ved that the respondents are misinterp r eting the order, as there is no c ondition of completion of 10 y e ars of servic e for claiming minimum of pay scale, observing as under:-

¶43

“ 4. I have heard learned c o unsel for the parties as well as M r. K.S.Kahlon, Registrar, G.N. D .U, who joined the proceed i ngs through video conferencing.

¶44

5. It is apparent that an e ff ort is being made to misinterpret the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions order passed by the Writ Cour t as well as the settled law as reco r ded of this document

¶45

7

¶46

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶47

in the decision rendered by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 148 , where no such condi t ion of completion of 10 years of se r vice for making an individual eligible for minimum of pay scale has been prescribed. In fact the respondents are depriving the petitioners of their entitlement u n der the order passed by the Writ C ourt by circumventing its opera t ion and intent.

¶48

6. In such circumstances, charges are ordered to be fra m ed against the Registrar, GNDU in terms of Sections 10 & 12 o f the Contempt of Courts Act, 19 7 1 for having shown willful ne g lect towards the intent and mea n ing of the order dated 23.04.2 0 24, passed by the Writ Court. The l earned Registrar, GNDU may fil e his response on or before the ne x t date of hearing and shall re m ain present in Court or join f urther proceedings through v i deo conferencing.

¶49

7. Adjourned to 08.04.202 5 . ”

¶50

[4] Pursuant thereto, affidavit h as been filed by the respond e nts wherein t he respondents again reiterate d their stand and insisted upon 10 years se r vice and passed speaking or d ers to the same effect. In the interregn u m, a CACP was also preferred, which was however withdrawn.

¶51

[5] Today, the respondents, namely Karamjeet Singh, V ice Chancell o r and Karamjit Singh Chahal, R egistrar, are present in person. [6] Keeping in view their incor r igible attitude, they are held g u ilty of willful l y disobeying the orders passed by this Court and consequently are held guilt y of committing contempt of C o urt.

¶52

[7] Accordingly, both the resp o ndents are sentenced to und e rgo simple i m prisonment for a period of one month. However, the operatio n of the sent e nce shall remain suspende d till 07.07.2027 to enable the

¶53

responde n ts to prefer appeal.

¶54

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶55

8

¶56

COCP-3882-2 0 24 and connected matters

¶57