Court Rules Against Chandigarh Administration, Ensures Minimum Pay Scale for 23-Year Part-Time Worker
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a Tribunal's decision granting a part-time Class-IV employee, who has rendered over 23 years of service, the minimum pay scale benefits. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Minderjeet Yadav, dismissing the Chandigarh Administration's petition challenging the Tribunal's order.
The case, titled "Chandigarh Administration v. Nanu Ram," revolved around the principle of "equal pay for equal work." The respondent, Nanu Ram, had been working as a part-time Class-IV employee for six hours a day, yet was not receiving the minimum pay scale benefits that other similarly placed employees were enjoying. The Tribunal had earlier allowed Ram's claim, noting that other part-time employees in similar positions had been granted such benefits.
The Chandigarh Administration contended that the benefit was not admissible under the Supreme Court's judgment in "Union of India v. Uma Devi," which dealt with the issue of regularization and pay parity for temporary workers. However, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court had not quashed the benefits granted to similarly situated employees, and thus, it was unfair to deny the same to Ram.
The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in "State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh," which upheld that temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to wages at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees. The Court emphasized the need for equal treatment among similarly situated employees, thereby extending the minimum pay scale benefits to the respondent.
The Court also cited several other judgments, including "Dharam Singh versus State of U.P." and "Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad," which recognized long service of part-time employees as a valid basis for regularization-related benefits. The High Court concluded that denying the benefit to Ram, who had served for more than two decades, was unjustified.
The ruling reinforces the principle that long-serving part-time employees should not be discriminated against and are entitled to equal pay benefits. The Chandigarh Administration's plea was dismissed, and the Court's decision is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases concerning part-time employees' rights.
Bottom Line :
Part-time Class-IV employee who had rendered more than 23 years of service and was similarly situated to other part-time employees already receiving minimum of pay scale could not be denied same benefit merely on basis of Uma Devi, especially when parity had been continued for similarly placed employees and subsequent Supreme Court decisions recognised long part-time service for regularisation-related benefits.
Statutory provision(s): State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, Union of India v. Uma Devi, Dharam Singh versus State of U.P., Jaggo versus Union of India, Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
Chandigarh Administration v. Nanu Ram, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982772
