Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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