Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Notification, Orders Equal Pay for Patwaris: ‘Classification Violates Article 14’

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, has quashed a notification that classified Patwaris into Junior and Senior Patwaris with different pay scales. The court held that this classification violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The judgment was delivered on August 4, 2023, after considering multiple Civil Writ Petitions challenging the discriminatory notification.

The petitioners, who are serving as Patwaris in the Revenue Department of Punjab Government, had contested the 1991 notification that created the distinction in pay scales. The court observed that the method of appointment and nature of duties for all Patwaris were the same, making the classification artificial and unjust.

Hon’ble Justice Sharma remarked, “There is no distinction or classification of Senior or Junior Patwaris in the Cadre, and they perform the same duties without any difference of job description. The classification based solely on seniority in the absence of any promotion channel is arbitrary and untenable.”

The court cited relevant precedents that emphasize the principle of equal pay for equal work and found that the classification based on seniority failed to stand the test of reasonableness and justification. It also rejected the respondents’ argument regarding delay, stating that the continuous wrong suffered by the petitioners entitles them to seek relief, even after the passage of time.

The judgment orders that all petitioners be placed in the higher pay scale of 1350-2400, similar to their Senior Patwari counterparts, and pay fixation should be completed within four months. Furthermore, the court directed the release of arrears in favor of the petitioners.

This ruling sets an important precedent in addressing discrimination in pay scales and upholding the constitutional principle of equality in public service appointments.

Date of Decision:    4th August, 2023

Baljinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others

Latest Legal News