AND HARYANA cases) 208(2 cases) Date of ate of Decision: February 24 v. State of Hary f Haryana dents & Ors.

This order of mine shall dispos d writ dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as th ns as they arise from a similar factual m ake of ctual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the fa , the facts are taken from CWP-9196 9196-2021.

The present writ petition(s) have 226 of ) have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitut nstitution of India for issuance of an in the of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of cert of certiorari for quashing the order da 5) der dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby the y the claim of petitioner and others f thers for grant of equal pay for equal work has be has been declined on the ground th nd that the petitioner has not been engaged afte d after following the due process an y the ess and the services rendered by the petitioner can ner cannot be taken at par with the oyees. h the services of regular employees. Further prayi r praying for issuance of a writ in the ecting in the nature of mandamus directing the responden pondents to pay the petitioner consolid e pay nsolidated pay at the initial of the pay scale plus all lus allowances as admissible on the p n the principle of equal pay for equal work. Furthe Further for directing the respondents to parity ents to decide the claim of pay parity the peti petitioner along with regular ular employees as mentioned representation ntation (Annexure P-7).

Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, contends that the respondent- -Nigam had issued an advertise ns for vertisement inviting applications for selection and on and appointment of 1100 posts o Shift osts of Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant in ant in District Kaithal, Haryana. T igible, ana. The petitioner, being eligible, participated i pated in the selection process and was ant on d was appointed as Shift Attendant on PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 3 contractual b tual basis and joined duties on 0 y, his on 01.05.2007. Subsequently, his remuneration eration was fixed on DC rates with effe ith effect from 16.03.2009.

3.1. It is further submitted that vide .2013, at vide instructions dated 14.02.2013, the State d tate directed that contractual em l employees engaged arious in various departments ents be paid either 50% of the initial Grade initial pay (Pay in Pay Band + Grade Pay + DA) o DA) of a fresh regular entrant after 01 ed by fter 01.01.2006 or the wages fixed by the Deputy C puty Commissioner under the Minimu inimum Wages Act, 1948, whichever is higher. Th er. The petitioner was being paid DC id DC rates @ Rs.14,560/- per month w.e.f. 01.03.2

01.03.2014. However, pursuant to off 4, his to office order dated 21.07.2014, his monthly rem ly remuneration was reduced withou ithout issuance of any show cause notice. Aggri Aggrieved, the petitioner along with s filed ith similarly situated persons filed CWP-22428 2428-2014, which was allowed on 2) ed on 13.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) directing the ng the respondents to make payment o n with ent of salary as per clarification with all consequen sequential benefits within three mont ues to months. The petitioner continues to work and his nd his contract has been extended fro ed from time to time. It is contended that perennia erennial work is being extracted fr egular ted from him at par with regular counterparts. rparts. As such, the petitioner is entitl s entitled to equal pay for equal work in view of t of the judgment passed by the Ho Civil Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.21 l No.213-2013, titled as State of Punja unjab Versus Jagjit Singh.

3.2. It is further submitted that g the that the employees including the petitioner fil ner filed CWP-7596-2017 which wa .2017 ich was disposed of on 10.08.2017 (Annexure P ure P-3) directing that the petitioners s with tioners be paid minimum wages with consequentia uential benefits and clarifying that i eiving that if any employee was receiving PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 4 higher wages wages, the same could not be reduced educed. Non-compliance of the same led to filing filing of COCP-1122-2018, which 18 hich was dismissed on 17.12.2018 (Annexure P ure P-4) after clearance of arrears. H of the rears. However, the minimum of the regular pay sc pay scale was not granted.

3.

Learned counsel further submits ubmits that the impugned order dated

07.12.2018 ( 018 (Annexure P-5) rejected the clai d that e claim primarily on the ground that the petitioner itioner was not engaged after adopting ase is opting due process and that his case is not covered vered under Jagjit Singh's case (sup urther (supra) . Learned counsel further submits that s that the petitioner was appointed pur ted pursuant to a public advertisement through a tran h a transparent process and that the res it that the respondents themselves admit that the petitioner itioner is rendering services for main stem. maintenance of the Nigam's system. Reference h nce has been made to Annexure exure P-6 and office order dated

06.02.2020 t 020 to demonstrate that identical ed to tical duties have been assigned to contractual a tual as well as regular employees, in ees, including 22 persons performing duties as AL as ALMs and LMs. It is contended th in the ded that the reasoning adopted in the speaking orde ng order is hyper-technical and contrar ontrary to record.

Per contra, learned counsel for t at the el for the respondents submits that the petitioner wa ner was not appointed pursuant to the at his to the said advertisement and that his engagement ment was purely contractual, w al, without adherence egular regular recruitment r ment rules. It is contended that the y and at the degree of responsibility and accountabilit tability of regular employees is higher ner is higher and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled t titled to parity in pay. It is also argue tarily argued that the petitioner voluntarily PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 5 accepted the ed the job on contractual terms and w s and and was well aware of its terms and conditions, an ons, and thus is bound by them.

I have heard the learned counsel ed the ounsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. It transpires itially nspires that the petitioner was initially appointed in ted in the year 2007 and is continuous l work inuously working. The perennial work is being extr g extracted from petitioner(s) at par rparts at par with their regular counterparts and the resp e respondent-Nigam has not controv ritten ontroverted this fact in their written statement. Th ent. There is no denial to the fact that orking t that the petitioner has been working for the last 1 last 17-18 years. The petitioner has r r has rendered full time service since his appointm ointment and has been performing id ly and ing identical duties, qualitatively and quantitatively atively, to his regular counterparts.

Learned counsel for the respond dicate espondent has been unable to indicate how the natu e nature of duties discharged by the p the petitioner are distinct from those discharged b rged by his regular counterparts. It is . It is not the case of the respondent that some ma me material differences exist between er and tween the service of the petitioner and his regular c ular counterparts, however, it has o at the has only been emphasized that the petitioner wa ner was aware of the terms of service. ervice. While the petitioner may have joined servic service on contractual basis, it remai es the remains a fact that he possesses the qualifications cations for the post and has been p es for een performing the same duties for nearly two de two decades.

The doctrine of 'Equal Pay for E ted in y for Equal Work' is deeply rooted in the constituti stitutional philosophy and reflects the ds for. cts the values that the State stands for. While Article Article 14 of the Constitution of India nation India forbids arbitrary discrimination PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 6 sans an intell intelligible differentia, Article 39(d) of the 39(d) highlights the intention of the framers to pr s to provide equal pay for equal work, e. The work, for men and women alike. The said provision ovisions read as follows:

Artic rticle 14- Equality before law The St e State shall not deny to any person erson equality before the law or the ual protection of the laws within the the territory of India. Article rticle 39- Certain Principles of Polic Policy to be Followed by the State The Sta e State shall, in particular, direct its ct its policy towards securing— (d) that there is equal pay for for equal work for both men and women;

Certainly, Article 39(d) forms a les of orms a part of Directive Principles of State Policy olicy and is non-justiciable in itself, Equal itself, however, the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equa r Equal Work has been elevated into tional ed into an enforceable constitutional right by mea y means of Article 14 and 16, aided b ise of d by the constitutional promise of social justice justice. A three-Judge bench of th urt in of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Randhir Sin Singh Vs. Union of India 1982 1982(1) SCC 618, while speaking through Justi h Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, made ons in , made the following observations in this regard: “8. It It is true that the principle of 'eq f 'equal pay for equal work' is not expres pressly declared by our Constitution But ution to be a fundamental right. But it certa certainly is a Constitutional goal. A al. Article 39(d) of the Constitution procla oclaims 'equal pay for equal work as a ork for both men and women' as a Direct irective Principle of State Policy. 'Eq . 'Equal pay for equal work for both men an en and women' means equal pay for d as for equal work for everyone and as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 7 betwee tween the sexes.

Thus, allowing a State employ es for employer to pay unequal wages for identical wo al work would essentially amou amount msical to validating whimsical discriminatio ination which would force vulnera untary ulnerable workers into involuntary submission, c sion, compelling them to choose bet spect. se between survival and self-respect. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 9 Such affront ffront to human dignity is unaccepta ion of cceptable being in direct violation of Articles 14 an s 14 and 21.

A two Judge Bench of the Hon te of e Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. J Vs. Jagjit Singh 2017(1) SCC 148 lity of 48 has discussed the applicability of the doctrine o ctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work ork in extenso and speaking through Justice Jagdis Jagdish Singh Khehar, made the follo e following observations, “44. W

4. We shall first outline the conclu re a nclusions drawn in cases where a aim for pay parity, raised at the han hands of the concerned temporary employ ployees, was accepted by this Cou le of Court, by applying the principle of ‘equal qual pay for equal work’, with refere eference to regular employees: (i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli ca case this Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by tempor porary employees, for wages equal to those being disbursed to regu regular employees. The prayer was accepted. The action of not pay t paying the same wage, despite the work being the same, was consi e 14 considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was hel d to s held that the action amounted to exploitation - in a welfare state tate committed to a socialist pattern of society. (ii) In the Surinder Singh case ht of ase this Court held that the right of equal wages claimed by tempo mporary employees emerged, inter alia, from Article 39 of the Cons Constitution.

The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was aga again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed nted on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne o ent. rne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was h n by as held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular es ent, ar establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the f the fact that the above proposition PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 10 was affirmed by a Constitution D.S. tion Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara case. (iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case in a case this Court recorded that in a claim for equal wages, the du e duration for which an employee would remain (or had remain ained) engaged, would not make any difference. So also, th , the manner of selection and appointment would make n fore, e no difference.

And therefore, whether the selection was m as made on the basis of open competition or was limited t ed to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, ins f the , insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. And like likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration ), or ation (six months, or one year), or an unlimited duratio ration, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the le of the applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is c t the ’ is concerned. It was held that the claim for equal wages wou would be sustainable where an employee is required to di discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular em r employees, and the concerned employee possesses the qualific post. alifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court re rt rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government tha t that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question was as not sustainable because the concerned employees were eng eme, engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were ere sanctioned on a year-to-year basis.

(iv) In the Daily Rated Casual &T sual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya D tiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case this Court held that under princ 8(2) principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution, Governmen ment could not deny a temporary PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 11 employee at least the minim inimum wage being paid to an employee in the correspondin nding regular cadre, along with dearness allowance and addit , as additional dearness allowance, as well as all the other benefits w d to fits which were being extended to casual workers. It was also n of lso held that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skill skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categorie s at ories, for payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable h an able. It was also held that such an act of an employer would amo amount to exploitation, and further that the same would be arbi arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore violative of Articles 14 s 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(v) In State of Punjab v. Devin 595, evinder Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595, this Court held that daily-wager d in agers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-scale cale of regular employees, working against the same post. The ab e above direction was issued after accepting that the concerned e ed employees were doing the same work as regular incumbents hol holding the same post, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for eq or equal work’. (vi) In the Secretary, State of K of Karnataka case, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside th urt, de the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily-wagers ers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and all allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this this case, this Court made a very important distinction between p n. It en pay parity and regularisation. It was held that the concept of equ le to f equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularisat risation.

But the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed deed applied, to the issue of pay parity - if the work componen onent was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court was was modified by this Court, and the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 12 concerned daily-wage employe ployees were directed to be paid wages equal to the salary at the t the lowest grade of the concerned cadre. (vii) In State of Haryana v. Ch C.T. . Charanjit Singh, 2006 (3) S.C.T. 170 : (2006) 9 SCC 321, a three hree-Judge Bench of this Court held that the decisions rendered by th a v. by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC CC 77; State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003 (4) S.C.T. 485 : (2 : (2003) 6 SCC 123; the Orissa University of Agriculture re & Technology case; and Government of W.B. v. Tarun 78 : arun K. Roy, 2004 (1) S.C.T. 78 : (2004) 1 SCC 347, laid down th wn the correct law.

Thereupon, this Court declared that if the con concerned daily-wage employees could establish that they were p ere performing equal work of equal quality, and all other releva d, a elevant factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such such employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petitio etition) would be justified. (viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti La d on tti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337, based on decisions in several cases (whe wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ had been invo aily- invoked), it was held that a daily wager discharging similar dutie duties as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw m of draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his cou s counterpart appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitl s or ntitled to any other allowances or increments. (ix) In the Uttar Pradesh Land and Development Corporation case this Court noticed that the re respondents were employed on contract basis, on a consolida olidated salary.

But, because they PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 13 were actually appointed to per st of perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court ourt directed the employer to pay the respondents wages in the the minimum of the pay-scales ascribed for the post of Assistan istant Engineer. X X X X X

In . In our considered view, it is fal s fallacious to determine artificial rameters to deny fruits of labour. ur. An employee engaged for the me work, cannot be paid less tha than another, who performs the same d me duties and responsibilities. Cer tate. . Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such ch an action besides being dem demeaning, strikes at the very founda undation of human dignity. Any on rk at y one, who is compelled to work at a lesse lesser wage, does not do so voluntar ntarily. He does so, to provide food and sh d shelter to his family, at the cost o y, at ost of his self respect and dignity, at the co e cost of his self worth, and at th r he at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, ows, that his dependents would su d suffer immensely, if he does not accept cept the lesser wage. Any act, of pa of paying less wages, as compared to oth others similarly situate, consti nstitutes an act of exploitative enslav slavement, emerging out of a domi dly, domineering position. Undoubtedly, the ac e action is oppressive, suppressive ssive and coercive, as it compels involun voluntary subjugation.” dded) (emphasis added)

Reliance in this regard may may be placed on the judgement rendered by t ed by this court in Jarnail Singh Vs. P s. PSPCL CWP -11499-2022. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9196- -2021 & CWP-3878-2020 14

In the present case, the petitione lished titioners have successfully established that they pe ey perform identical duties to th . The to their regular counterparts. The respondents h dents have failed to provide any intel fy the y intelligible differentia to justify the stark differen ifference in wages. The fact that the on a at the petitioners were engaged on a contractual b tual basis, and not through a regular re levant ular recruitment process, is irrelevant to the questi question of pay parity once it is establ same. established that the work is the same. The reasonin asoning adopted in the speaking order ure P- order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P 5) is, therefor erefore, hyper-technical and contrary ntrary to the settled position of law.

In view of the discussion ab s are on above the present petitions are allowed. Acc d. Accordingly, the impugned order da 5) rder dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) is hereby qua by quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed ected to pass an appropriate order granting the g the minimum of the regular pay sca ms of ay scale to the petitioners in terms of instructions d tions dated 14.02.2013, within a perio eceipt a period of three months from receipt of a certified rtified copy of this order.

Furthermore, in case the case case of the petitioners are covered under any re any regularization policy, they shall b zation shall be considered for regularization within three m three months and an appropriate order order be passed in this regard. Photocopy of this order be plac nected e placed on the file of the connected

case. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE ary 24, 2025 February 24 P.C Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.27 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document