MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

“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