Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

“Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules in Favor of Retired Teachers: “Equal Pay for Equal Work” Prevails in Extension Lecturers’ Case”

04 September 2024 10:43 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, represented by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, delivered a landmark verdict on July 21, 2023, granting justice to retired teachers seeking equal pay for equal work. The court quashed Clause/paragraph 11 of the ‘Policy guidelines regarding engaging Eligible Extension Lecturers in Govt. Colleges purely on work requirement basis’, dated 04.03.2020, which led to a differentiation in remuneration between retired and serving extension lecturers.

The case, titled Dr. Balwinder Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.15114 of 2021, centered around the petitioners, retired Associate Professors in the subject of Punjabi, who applied to be engaged as extension lecturers. They were eligible for the position and had been initially appointed on a monthly remuneration of Rs.57,700 in accordance with the policy guidelines.

However, a subsequent policy issued by the respondents on 04.03.2020 introduced Clause 11, which lowered the remuneration of retired extension lecturers to Rs.35,400, creating a disparity in pay. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of this clause and fair compensation in line with eligible serving extension lecturers.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya emphasized the principle of “equal pay for equal work” while delivering the verdict. The court found that the differentiation based on retirement status was arbitrary and violated the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

“The respondents cannot shirk from the duty to pay all eligible extension lecturers, who form one class, equally for the same work done by them in compliance of the Constitutional mandate of equality,” the court stated in its judgment.

The court also distinguished the judgment in Suman Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 2020(4) S.C.T 523, which was relied upon by the respondents to justify the impugned clause. The court clarified that Suman Devi case did not address the issue of remuneration for eligible retired government teachers engaged as extension lecturers, making it inapplicable to the present case.

As a result of the judgment, Clause/paragraph 11 of the Policy dated 04.03.2020 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay the petitioners the remuneration at the rate of Rs.57,700 per month, effective from the date of their appointment as extension lecturers. Furthermore, the court ordered the release of the arrears of the difference in remuneration within six weeks.

The ruling has been hailed as a significant step towards upholding the rights of retired teachers and ensuring equitable treatment for extension lecturers, regardless of their retirement status. The judgment serves as a reminder that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” must be adhered to in all employment matters to safeguard the rights of employees.

Date of Decision: 21.07.2023

Dr. Balwinder Singh and another vs State of Haryana and others

Latest Legal News