UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction In Injunction Suit Between Private Parties Not Barred If Title Or Vesting In Panchayat Not In Issue: P&H High Court District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission Section 135(3) BNSS | Executive Magistrate Cannot Demand Interim Bond Without Commencing Inquiry; Must Supply Kalandara Material & Follow Madhu Limaye Safeguards: Delhi High Court In Neha Bora Sections 126 & 130 BNSS | Writ Court Cannot Evaluate Sufficiency Of Material At Show-Cause Stage Unless There Is 'Nil Material': Delhi High Court Section 32 Evidence Act | Multiple Dying Declarations Cannot Be Discarded Over Minor Variations If Core Substratum Imputing Fatal Blow Remains Consistent: Allahabad High Court Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court POCSO | Mandating Injury Report Indicating Penetrative Assault For Victim Compensation Violates Article 14, Frustrates Sec 164-A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Section 308 IPC | Premeditation & Requisite Intention Must Be Proved; Single Blow With Stone In Sudden Fight Attracts Section 325 IPC: Delhi High Court Organizing A Book Fair Is A Private Activity And Not A 'Public Function' Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Calcutta High Court Prior Permission From Education Officer Before Issuing Recruitment Advertisement Is Mandatory, Not An Empty Formality: Bombay High Court Order 41 Rule 5 CPC | Tenant Facing Eviction Decree Liable To Pay Mesne Profits At Market Rate Till Delivery Of Possession: Himachal Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court Section 35 BNSS | Notice For Appearance Under Section 35(3) Is Not A Mandatory Precondition For Arrest Under Section 104 Of The Customs Act: Gujarat High Court Section 58 BNSS | 24-Hour Cap Is An Outer Limit, Not A Licence To Detain Accused Until Morning Court Hours: Kerala High Court Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Chain, Last-Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity To Time Of Death: Karnataka High Court Service Law | Procedural Violation In Domestic Inquiry Not Fatal Unless Delinquent Proves Real Prejudice: Bombay High Court Indian Succession Act | Unequal Disposition Or Exclusion Of Legal Heir Does Not Invalidate Will If Due Execution Proved: Madras High Court Civil Services Rules | Seniority Counts From Initial Appointment If Normal Probation Completed Without Extension; Minor Penalty Cannot Depress Rank: High Court Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court Section 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Inapplicable To Search Of Bag Carried By Accused: Himachal Pradesh High Court Railway Rolling Stock Transfers to IRFC Must Be Classified to Determine Sales Tax Liability Under Delhi Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed To Pillion Rider In Road Accident: Karnataka High Court Nasha Mukti Center Cannot Detain Adult Based Merely On Spouse's Consent Without Medical Mandate: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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