Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Ex Parte Decree Obtained Behind Back of True Owner Confers No Title; Appellate Stage Cannot Be Used to Rescue a Fundamentally Flawed Claim: Supreme Court Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appeal Cannot Be Decided Without First Adjudicating Additional Evidence Application: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Only Allegation Quarrelling Is Not a Criminal Offence, Cannot Sustain Cognizance: Supreme Court Quash Proceedings Eye-Witness Survives 82 Pages of Cross-Examination: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Payment of Tax Receipts Is Not A Conclusive Proof of Possession of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Spa Owner Who Personally Received Marked Currency And Promised 'Nice Females With Closed Door Rooms' Cannot Escape Trafficking Charges: Bombay High Court No Person Can Transfer A Better Title Than What He Possesses In Property So Transferred: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unsubstantiated Allegations of Illicit Affair and Attempt to Kill Child in Written Statement Amount to Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Child Dies Inside Anganwadi Centre After Repeated Complaints About Exposed Wires Went Unaddressed: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance, Directs Statewide Safety Audit 'High Speed' Without Mentioning Approximate Speed Not Sufficient To Prove Rash And Negligent Driving Under Section 279 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court 'Reverse Passing Off' Is Not an Actionable Tort in Indian Trade Mark Law: Delhi High Court: SARFAESI E-Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Prosecuted For Undervaluation When DRT Has Affirmed Valuation: Jharkhand High Court Republishing Defamatory Facebook Post On Website Constitutes Fresh Offence of Defamation; Prior Publication In Public Domain No Defence: Kerala High Court One Year Custody Not Prolonged In Cases Involving Attack On Police Post With Explosive Substance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Bribe Demand Can Be Proved Through Electronic Evidence Even If Complainant Turns Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Sand Theft Under BNS And Kerala Sand Act Can Be Prosecuted Simultaneously; Earlier Contrary View Per Incuriam: Kerala High Court Judge Overrules Own Judgment

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