Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Leave was granted, and by consent of counsel the appeal was taken up for final hearing. The respondents are NMR daily wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. In writ proceedings before the High Court, they contended that they performed the same work as regularly recruited Ledger Clerks and therefore should receive equal pay. The High Court directed the appellant-State to pay them salary and allowances equivalent to regular employees holding similar posts and to pay the difference of pay scale for the last three years from the filing of the writ petition. The State appealed against this direction.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant-State to pay the respondents salary and allowances at par with regularly appointed Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks.
  2. Whether the respondents were entitled to the difference in pay for the period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized that the respondents are NMR daily wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. It accepted the applicability of the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” but confined its operation to a limited extent based on the respondents' non-regular status.

  • The Court held that because the respondents were performing similar work as regularly appointed Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks, they were entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale applicable to those regular posts, along with permissible allowances computed on that basis.
  • However, the Court emphasized that the respondents were not regularly appointed. Consequently, they could not be granted the full running time scale or parity with the salary and allowances of regularly appointed employees. The entitlement is limited to the minimum of the relevant pay scale.
  • As to retrospective monetary relief, the Court directed payment of the difference between emoluments already paid and those payable under this ruling for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.
  • Prospectively, the respondents are to receive the minimum salary in the time scale of Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks with appropriate allowances so long as they continue to work as daily wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks.
  • The Court noted that if respondents seek regularization, they may approach the appellants, and such a request is to be considered on its own merits by the appellants.
  • If any excess amount is found to have been paid, it is to be adjusted in a phased and reasonable manner to avoid imposing undue financial hardship on the respondents.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The High Court’s direction to pay respondents the salary and allowances of regularly appointed employees was set aside. The respondents are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale for Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks, with permissible allowances, with arrears limited to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition and prospective entitlement to the minimum salary while they continue as daily wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. Any excess payments are to be adjusted in a phased, reasonable manner. No costs.

Implications: The decision grants the respondents partial monetary parity based on the “Equal Pay for Equal Work” principle, confined to the minimum of the applicable pay scale due to their non-regular status. It does not grant full parity with regular employees nor automatic regularization. The order has direct financial consequences for the parties and leaves regularization to be considered on merits by the employer; no broader doctrinal change is articulated.

    State Of Punjab And Others v. Devinder Singh And Others

    1. Leave granted.

    2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

    3. The short question is whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant-State to pay to the respondents-petitioners before the High Court the salary and allowances as are being paid to the regular employees holding similar posts and whether the respondents could be held entitled to the payment of difference of the pay scale for the period of last three years from the date of filing of the writ petition. It is not a dispute and cannot be disputed that the respondents are NMR daily wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. Their contention before the High Court was that they were doing the same work as regular Ledger Clerks who are recruited by the employer. Consequently, they must be paid equal pay on the ground of equal work. In our view, the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” can enure to the respondents to the limited extent that when they were found to have been giving similar work as Ledger Clerks/Ledger-Keepers they could have been paid the minimum of the pay scale of a Ledger-Keeper which was available to regularly appointed Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. Learned counsel for the respondents could not successfully contend that such an order should not have been passed. We, therefore, allow this appeal to the limited extent that though the respondents are held entitled on the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” to get the salary available to the Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks who are regularly recruited, they would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the Ledger-Keepers which may be available to the regularly appointed Ledger-Keepers and they cannot be straightaway paid the running time scale as they were not regularly appointed as Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. If the respondents claim to be regularised, it will be open to the respondents to approach the appellants for the same which request obviously will be considered by the appellants on its own merits. The direction issued by the High Court in favour of the respondents entitling them to get the salary and allowances as regularly appointed employees is set aside and instead it is directed that the respondents will be entitled to get the minimum of the pay scale available to the Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks with permissible allowances on that basis and the difference between the emoluments already paid to each of the respondents and those payable to them pursuant to the present order will be payable to the respondents for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition and thereafter minimum salary in the time scale of Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks with appropriate allowances thereon shall be available to the respondents so long they work as daily wage Ledger-Keepers/Ledger Clerks. In view of the present order if in case any amount is found to have been paid to the respondents in excess, it will be adjusted in a phased and reasonable manner so that the respondents may not be out of pocket to a large extent. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    State Of Punjab And Others v. Devinder Singh And Others
    (Jul 21, 1997)