STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. versus MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 31-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2017] 1 S.C.R. 1006 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. 
v. 
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7391-7395 of2013) 
JANUARY 31, 2017 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI AND 
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
Labour Laws - Engagement of respondents as conductors 
and drivers - Under Statutory Rules framed by the State - Initial 
wages paid by treating them as daily wagers - Wages further 
enhanced by treating them as contract labourers - Finally }'loges 
paid to them in the regular pay scale - Writ petitions by 195 of such 
employees seeking wages i1:1 the regular pay-scale w.ej the date of 
their entry into service - Petitions disposed of by High Court by 
order dated 1.4.2013 holding that the employees were entitled to 
regular pay from the date of their initial appointments - High Court 
further held that they were entitled to arrears for three years and 
two months period prior to the date of filing the petitions - The 
State accepted and implemented the judgment of High Court as 
regards grant of regular pay-scale to all such employees from the 
date of their initial appointment - However, the State imposed the 
condition that it would pay the arrears only w.ej 1.1.2014 - 65 of 
the writ petitioners-employees accepted the condition - Appeal of 
State - Held: The order of High Court as regards payment of wages 
on the principle of equal pay for equal work, calls for no interference 
- However, arrears should have been held to be payable only w.ej 
the date of the order of the High Court i.e. 1.4.2013-Jn exercise of 
iurisdiction u!Art. 142 of Constitution, direction issued to the State 
to pay arrears to all the persons similarly situated as the respondent-
employees - Haryana Transport Department (Group C) Haryana 
Roadways Service (Amended) Rules, 2003. 
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 
3 SCR 953 - followed. 
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 -
referred to. 
1006 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. v. MOHINDER 
1007 
SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. 
Case Law Reference 
A 
(2917) 1 SCC 148 
referred to 
Para 7 
[20061 3 SCR 953 
followed 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7391-
7395 of2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2013 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos. 22516, 3084, 
17357, 25975 of2012 & CWP No. 1257 of2013 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 1556-1569 of2017 and C. A. No. 8993 of2014. 
B. K. Satija, AAG., Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Prashant Singh, 
Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Rakhi Mohanty, Tanvir Nayar, Dr. Monika Gusain, 
Vi pin Kumar Jai, Advs. for the Appellants. 
Manjeet Singh, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Tarjeet Singh, 
YogendraKr. Verma, Pankaj Pandey, Sanjay Kr. Rathee (For Satyendra 
Kumar), L. R. Khatana, Mohit Singh, Hemraj Tewatia, Sidharth Khatana 
(For Sudhir Naagar), Suraj Prakash Ahlawat, Suresh Kumar Sharma, 
San jay Malik (For Bankey Bihari Sharma), Sachin Jain (For Dr. Kai lash 
Chand), Jasbir Singh Malik (For Ms. Usha Nandini), Siddharth Mittal, 
Surender Singh (For Ms. Usha Nandini), Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliv,ered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI I. The respondents before 
this Court were engaged as conductors and drivers under statutory rules, 
framed by the State ofHaryana, under Article 309 of the Constitution of 
India. Under the concerned statutory rules, even though conductors and 
drivers were engaged after following due process, they were paid 
different wages. Their initial wages were paid by treating them as daily 
wagers, their wages were then enhanced by treating them as contract 
labourers,•and finally, they were paid regular wages in the regular pay 
scale. 
2. 195 of such employees preferred writ petitions before the 
High Court, seeking wages in th~ regular scale of pay, with effect from 
the date of their entry into service. All those writ petitions came to be 
disposed of, by a common order dated 1.4.2013 (or by placing reliance 
on the said order). The operative part of the above order, is being extracted 
hereunder: 
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that placing the petitioners on 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1008 
A 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l S.C.R. · 
•. 
consolidated salary is impermissible and the rules to this extent 
· are unconstitutional ai:d, therefore;liable to be set aside. The 
placing of the petitioners in pay scales meant for Grade-II and 
two years thereafter in Grade-I cannot be permissible. Tu 
pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.