Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

“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