Bharat Electronics Panchkula … vs Union Of India And Others on 22 December, 2008

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                   Civil Writ Petition No. 3152 of 1989
                  Date of decision: 22nd December, 2008

Bharat Electronics Panchkula Employees Union (Regd.)
and another

                                                                ... Petitioners

                                  Versus

Union of India and others
                                                             ... Respondents

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:    Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. Amit K. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Case of the petitioners is that executive and non-executive

functionaries of the company at Bangalore are being paid house rent

allowance @ 25 percent. Counsel further states that at Ghaziabad,

executive officials and non-executive officials are being paid @ 30 percent.

Counsel state that a discrimination has occurred between the executive and

non-executive officials at Panchkula, as executive officials are being paid @

20 percent and non-executive officials at Panchkula are being paid @ 15

percent.

Grievance of the petitioners is that like Bangalore and

Ghaziabad, petitioners ought to have been paid same percentage of the

house rent allowance, as is being paid to executive and non-executive

officials at Bangalore and Ghaziabad.

I do not find any merit in this contention. Availability of housing

is a question of fact in each locality. In one city, accommodation for high

income group, middle income group and lower income group may be scare
Civil Writ Petition No.3152 of 1989 2

and equal rate may be applicable. In another town, high income group

residential accommodation may be in scarcity and lower income group and

middle income group accommodation may be available in plenty. Therefore,

these are the decisions, which are to be taken by the employer taking into

consideration ground realities of each city and locality. Therefore, a

reasonable classification has been made, which cannot be held arbitrary.

Hence, no interference is warranted by this Court in the present

writ petition and the same is dismissed.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
December 22, 2008
rps