138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High 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