Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

“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