Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana … vs Ramesh Kumar And Others on 6 November, 2009

RSA No.4000 of 2009 (O&M)             1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                               CM No. 12173-C of 2009 and
                               RSA No. 4000 of 2009 (O&M)

                               Date of Decision: November 06, 2009


Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture
University, Hissar and others                            ...... Appellants


      Versus

Ramesh Kumar and others                                  ...... Respondents



Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:    Mr.Siddarth Batra, Advocate
            for the appellants.

            Mr.Jitender Sharma, Advocate
            for the caveator-respondents.
                   ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.

CM No. 12173-C of 2009

For the reasons recorded, the delay of 174 days in refiling the

appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RSA No. 4000 of 2009 (O&M)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned

lower Appellate Court whereby the decree passed by the learned trial court

has been modified to the extent that the appellants have been directed to

grant arrears only for a period of three years preceding the suit and not from
RSA No.4000 of 2009 (O&M) 2

24.9.93 as claimed by the respondents. The respondents filed the suit

claiming that they were regularised w.e.f. 24.9.93 and were placed in a

lower scale than the other persons who were appointed on regular basis.

The defence of the appellant-University was that the respondents did not

have the necessary qualification and further that before their regularisation

their association had undertaken that they would not seek higher pay scale.

However, the learned courts below found that even with respect to other

persons the requirement of qualification was relaxed. Originally there was

relaxation for the respondents also but later on that relaxation order was

withdrawn. On a conspectus of all these facts the courts below found that

the respondents had been able to maintain a case of positive discrimination

and consequently held that the action of the appellant- University in not

granting them the higher pay scale was illegal. As mentioned above the

learned trial court decreed suit in entirety but the learned lower Appellate

Court modified the decree and granted arrears only for three years preceding

the filing of the suit.

The following questions have been proposed:-

A) Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work can be
applied in case of an employee who does not fulfil the requisite
qualifications?

B) Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work can be
applied in the case where the employees were regularised on a
wrong pay scale and after giving him relaxation?
C) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by
limitation?

As regards questions No. A and B, after having relaxed the

qualification for similarly situated employees, it would not lie in the mouth

of the appellants to argue that the respondents did not possess the necessary
RSA No.4000 of 2009 (O&M) 3

qualification. Thus, questions No. A and B have to be answered against the

appellants. As regards question No. C, I find that the learned lower

Appellate Court has rightly considered the matter while granting relief of

arrears only for a period of 3 years prior to the filing of the suit.

Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are

dismissed.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.

Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

November 06, 2009
sunita