COCP-3882-2024 v. Professor (Dr.) Jaspal Singh Sandhu & Anr.

PANKAJ JAIN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Ms.Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners in COCP-3882-2024, COCP- COCP-4024-2024, COCP-1785 COCP-1782-2025 &COCP-1958 1958-2025. 1785-2025, COCP-1759-2025, 2025, -3547-2024 CM-21528-CII-2025, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate in COCP-853-2025. Advocate for the petitioners for the respondents. Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the respondents. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) PANKAJ JAIN [1] in the present contempt petitions is as to The issue involved in the present contempt petitions is as to in the present contempt petitions is as to ‘Whether respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the hether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Writ Court or not?’ Writ Court or not? [2] etitioners are employees working with the GNDU. A etitioners are employees working with the GNDU. The petitioners are employees working with the GNDU. 3 COCP-3882-2024 2024 and connected matters bunch of writ petitions unch of writ petitions was filed wherein the petitioner equal pay filed wherein the petitioners sought equal pay elying upon the ratio of law laid down by for equal work. The Writ Court relying upon the ratio of law laid down by elying upon the ratio of law laid down by for equal work. Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab versus Supreme Court reported as 2017 versus Jagjit Singh’, reported as 2017 (1) SCC 148, allowed the writ petitions, observing as under: (1) SCC 148 , allowed the writ petitions, observing as under:- “3. Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the same breath, submit that the petitioners have been serving the University in different capacities for more than 10 years respondent-University in different capacities for more than 10 years University in different capacities for more than 10 years grade pay, and are thus entitled to minimum of pay scale including DA, grade pay, and are thus entitled to minimum of pay scale including DA, etc. and regularization, their cases being squarely covered by the etc. and regularization, their cases being squarely covered by the etc. and regularization, their cases being squarely covered by the judgments in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh,