Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 February, 2026
1
CWP-9196--2021 & CWP-3878-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208(2 cases) Date of Decision: February 24, 2026
1. CWP-9196-2021
Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
2. CWP-3878-2020
Sunil Kumar and another .....Petitionerss
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Arjun Dev, Advocate for Mr.Vivek K. Thakur
Thakur,, Advocate for
the petitioner(s) in CWP-9196--2021.
Ms. Tehermehakdeep, Advocate for Ms. Dhivya Jerath,
Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP-3878-2020.
Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Aakash Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in
CWP-9196-2021.
Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Mr. Hardeep Singh Poonia and
Mr. Mister Ojasvi Taak, Advocates for respondents No.2 & 3
in CWP-9196-2021 and 3878-2020.
2020.
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
2
CWP-9196--2021 & CWP-3878-2020
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. This order of mine shall dispose of the above
above-mentioned
mentioned writ
petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of
brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-9196
9196-2021.
2. The present writ petition(s) have been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P
P-5)
5)
whereby the claim
claim of petitioner and others for grant of equal pay for equal
work has been declined on the ground that the petitioner has not been
engaged after following the due process and the services rendered by the
petitioner cannot be taken at par with the services ooff regular employees.
Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to pay the petitioner consolidated pay at the initial of the pay
scale plus allowances as admissible on the principle of equal pay for equal
work.
k. Further for directing the respondents to decide the claim of pay parity
of the petitioner along with regular employees as mentioned in
representation (Annexure P-7).
P
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia,, contends that the
respondent–Nigam had issued an advertisement inviting applications for
selection and appointment of 1100 posts of Assistant Lineman and Shift
Attendant in District Kaithal, Haryana. The petitioner, being eligible,
participated in the selection process and was appointed as Shift Attendant on
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
3
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
contractual basis and joined duties on 01.05.2007. Subsequently, his
remuneration was fixed on DC rates with effect from 16.03.2009.
3.1. It is further submitted that vide instructions dated 14.02.2013,
the State directed that contractual
contractual employees engaged in various
departments be paid either 50% of the initial pay (Pay in Pay Band + Grade
Pay + DA) of a fresh regular entrant after 01.01.2006 or the wages fixed by
the Deputy Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whichever
is higher. The petitioner was being paid DC rates @ Rs.14,560/
Rs.14,560/- per month
w.e.f. 01.03.2014. However, pursuant to office order dated 21.07.2014, his
monthly remuneration was reduced without issuance of any show cause
notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner along with
with similarly situated persons filed
CWP-22428
22428-2014,
2014, which was allowed on 13.05.2016 (Annexure P-2)
2)
directing the respondents to make payment of salary as per clarification with
all consequential benefits within three months. The petitioner continues to
work
rk and his contract has been extended from time to time. It is contended
that perennial work is being extracted from him at par with regular
counterparts. As such, the petitioner is entitled to equal pay for equal work
in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.213-2013,
No.213 titled as State of Punjab Versus Jagjit Singh
Singh.
3.2. It is further submitted that the employees including the
petitioner filed CWP-7596-2017
CWP 2017 which was disposed of on 10.08.2017
(Annexure P-3)
P directing that
hat the petitioners be paid minimum wages with
consequential benefits and clarifying that if any employee was receiving
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
4
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
higher wages, the same could not be reduced. Non
Non-compliance
compliance of the same
led to filing of COCP-1122-2018,
COCP 2018, which was dismissed on 17.12.20
17.12.2018
18
(Annexure P-4)
P 4) after clearance of arrears. However, the minimum of the
regular pay scale was not granted.
3.3. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order dated
07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5)
P 5) rejected the claim primarily on the ground that
the petitioner was not engaged after adopting due process and that his case is
not covered under Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) . Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to a public advertisement
through a transparent process and
and that the respondents themselves admit that
the petitioner is rendering services for maintenance of the Nigam’s system.
Reference has been made to Annexure P
P-6
6 and office order dated
06.02.2020 to demonstrate that identical duties have been assigned to
contractual
ntractual as well as regular employees, including 22 persons performing
duties as ALMs and LMs. It is contended that the reasoning adopted in the
speaking order is hyper-technical
hyper technical and contrary to record.
4. Per contra,, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner was not appointed pursuant to the said advertisement and that his
engagement was purely contractual, without adherence to regular
recruitment rules. It is contended that the degree of responsibility and
accountability of regular
regular employees is higher and, therefore, the petitioner is
not entitled to parity in pay. It is also argued that the petitioner voluntarily
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
5
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
accepted the job on contractual terms and was well aware of its terms and
conditions, and thus is bound by them.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance. It transpires that the petitioner was initially
appointed in the year 2007 and is continuously working. The perennial work
is being extracted from petitioner(s)
petitioner(s) at par with their regular counterparts
and the respondent-Nigam
respondent Nigam has not controverted this fact in their written
statement. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner has been working
for the last 17-18
17 years.The
The petitioner has rendered full tim
timee service since
his appointment and has been performing identical duties, qualitatively and
quantitatively, to his regular counterparts.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to indicate
how the nature of duties discharged by the petitio
petitioner
ner are distinct from those
discharged by his regular counterparts. It is not the case of the respondent
that some material differences exist between the service of the petitioner and
his regular counterparts, however, it has only been emphasized that the
petitioner was aware of the terms of service. While the petitioner may have
joined service on contractual basis, it remains a fact that he possesses the
qualifications for the post and has been performing the same duties for
nearly two decades.
7. The doctrine
trine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is deeply rooted in
the constitutional philosophy and reflects the values that the State stands for.
While Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids arbitrary discrimination
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
6
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
sans an intelligible differentia, Article
Article 39(d) highlights the intention of the
framers to provide equal pay for equal work, for men and women alike. The
said provisions read as follows:
“Article
Article 14-
14 Equality before lawThe State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 39-
39 Certain Principles of Policy to be Followed by the StateThe State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing
securing–
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and
women;”
8. Certainly, Article 39(d) forms a part of Directive Principles of
State Policy and is non-justiciable
non justiciable in itself, however, the doctrine of Equal
Pay for Equal Work has been elevated into an enforceable constitutional
right by means of Article 14 and 16, aided
aided by the constitutional promise of
social justice. A three-Judge
three Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
618,, while speaking
Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India 1982(1) SCC 618
through Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, made the following observations in
this regard:
“8. It is true that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not
expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But
it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution
proclaims ‘equal pay for equal work for both m
men
en and women’ as a
Directive Principle of State Policy. ‘Equal pay for equal work for both
men and women’ means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
7CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in
some of the judgments of this Court
Court have to be read into the
fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the
Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean some thing to
everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of
the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with
the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses
will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the
special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying aalleged
lleged robber-
robber
barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is
discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the
matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on
the Executive, whether the takeover of the em
empires
pires of industrial
tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like
nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched.
Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are
yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the
equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them.
them
The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the
people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist
Democratic Republic.
Republic. Again the word ‘Socialist’ must mean
something. Even if it does not mean ‘To each according to his need’ ,
it must atleast mean ‘equal pay for equal work’. The principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ is expressly recognised by all socialist
systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para
2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
8CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic
Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this
principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too.
Under provisions in Section 31(g.No. 2d) of Book 1 of the French
Code du Travail, and according to Argentinean law, this principle
must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining
agreements.
reements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the
German Federal Republic, and clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican
Constitution, the principle is given universal significance (vide :
International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p. 265). The pr
preamble
eamble of
the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises
the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ as
constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of
conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large
numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and
harmony of the world are imperiled” . Construing Articles 14 and 16
in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d) we are of the view that
the principle ‘Equal pay for Equal
Equal work’ is deducible from those
Article and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of
pay based on no classification or irrational classification though
these drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the
same employer.”
employer.
(emphasis added)
9. Thus, allowing a State employer to pay unequal wages for
identical work would essentially amount to validating whimsical
discrimination which would force vulnerable workers into involuntary
submission, compelling them to choose
choose between survival and self
self-respect.
respect.
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
9
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
Such affront to human dignity is unacceptable being in direct violation of
Articles 14 and 21.
10. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh 2017(1) SCC 148 has discussed the
he applicability of
the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work in extenso and speaking through
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, made the following observations,
“44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a
claim for pay parity, raised at the
the hands of the concerned temporary
employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’, with reference to regular employees:
(i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli case this Court examined a claim
for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal
to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was
accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the
work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14
of the Constitution. It was held that the action amounted to
exploitation – in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern
of society.
(ii) In the Surinder Singh case this Court held that the right of
equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter
alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal
pay for equal work’ was again applied, where the subject
employee had been appointed on tem
temporary
porary basis, and the
reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment.
The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by
an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment,
this Court also took note of the fact that the above pproposition
roposition
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
10
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S.
Nakara case.
(iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case this Court recorded that in a
claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee
would remain (or had remained) engaged, would not make
any difference. So also, the manner of selection and
appointment would make no difference. And therefore,
whether the selection was made on the basis of open
competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was
considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the
principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment
was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or
for an unlimited duration, was also considered
inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the pr
principle
inciple of
‘equal pay for equal work’ is concerned. It was held that the
claim for equal wages would be sustainable where an
employee is required to discharge similar duties and
responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned
employee possesses thee qualifications prescribed for the post.
In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced
on behalf of the Government that the plea of equal wages by the
employees in question was not sustainable because the
concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme,
and against posts which were sanctioned on a year
year-to-year
year
basis.
(iv) In the Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T
Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case
this Court held that under principle flowing from Articl
Articlee 38(2)
of the Constitution, Government could not deny a temporary
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
11
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
employee at least the minimum wage being paid to an
employee in the corresponding regular cadre, along with
dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, as
well as all the other benefits
nefits which were being extended to
casual workers. It was also held that the classification of
workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled
skilled and skilled), doing the same
work, into different categories, for payment of wages at
different rates, was not tenable. It w
was
as also held that such an
act of an employer would amount to exploitation, and further
that the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and
therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(v) In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh
Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595,
this Court held that daily-wagers
wagers were entitled to be placed in
the minimum of the pay-scale
scale of regular employees, working
against the same post. The above direction was issued after
accepting that the concerned employees were doing the same
workk as regular incumbents holding the same post, by applying
the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
(vi) In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case, a Constitution
Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court,
and directed that daily-wagers
ers be paid salary equal to the
lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular
employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very
important distinction between pay parity and regularisation. It
was held that the concept of equality w
would
ould not be applicable to
issues of absorption/regularisation. But the concept was held
as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay
parity – if the work component was the same. The judgment
rendered by the High Court was modified by this Cou
Court,
rt, and the
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
12
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
concerned daily-wage
wage employees were directed to be paid
wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the concerned
cadre.
(vii) In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh
Singh,, 2006 (3) S.C.T.
170 : (2006) 9 SCC 321, a three
three-Judge Bench of this Courtt held
that the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Jasmer Singh,, (1996) 11 SCC 77; State of Haryana v. Tilak
Raj,, 2003 (4) S.C.T. 485 : (2003) 6 SCC 123; the Orissa
University of Agriculture & Technology case; and
Roy,, 2004 (1) S.C.T. 78 :
Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy
(2004) 1 SCC 347, laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this
Court declared that if the concerned daily
daily-wage
wage employees
could establish that they were performing equal work of equal
quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a
direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from
the date of filing the writ petition) would be justified.
(viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal
Lal,, (2006) 9 SCC 337, based on
decisions in several cases (wherein the principle of ‘equal pay
for equal work’ had been invoked), it was held that a daily-
daily
wager discharging similar duties as those engaged on regular
basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of
the pay-scale
scale (drawn by his counterpart appointed on regular
basis),, but would not be entitled to any other allowances or
increments.
(ix) In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case
this Court noticed that the respondents were employed on
contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
13
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
were actually
ually appointed to perform the work of the post of
Assistant Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay
the respondents wages in the minimum of the pay
pay-scales
scales
ascribed for the post of Assistant Engineer.
XXX
55. In our considered view, it is fal
fallacious
lacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the
same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state.
Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very
foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at
a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food
and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at
integrity. For he
the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity
knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not
accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared
to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative
slavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly,
enslavement,
the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels
involuntary subjugation.”
(emphasis added)
11. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgement
rendered by this court in Jarnail Singh Vs. PSPCL CWP -11499-2022.
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::
14
CWP-9196–2021 & CWP-3878-2020
12. In the present case, the petitioners have successfully established
that they perform identical duties to their regular counterpa
counterparts.
rts. The
respondents have failed to provide any intelligible differentia to justify the
stark difference in wages. The fact that the petitioners were engaged on a
contractual basis, and not through a regular recruitment process, is irrelevant
to the question
question of pay parity once it is established that the work is the same.
The reasoning adopted in the speaking order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-
P
5) is, therefore, hyper-technical
hyper technical and contrary to the settled position of law.
13. In view of the discussion above the present petitions are
allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P
P-5)
5)
is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order
granting the minimum of the regular pay scale to the petit
petitioners
ioners in terms of
instructions dated 14.02.2013, within a period of three months from receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
15. Furthermore, in case the case of the petitioners are covered
under any regularization policy, they shall be considered ffor
or regularization
within three months and an appropriate order be passed in this regard.
16. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
February 24,
24 2025
P.C Whether speaking/reasoned.
g/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 20:35:34 :::