RSA No.4000 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 12173-C of 2009 and RSA No. 4000 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 06, 2009 Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar and others ...... Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Siddarth Batra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the caveator-respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 12173-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, the delay of 174 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 4000 of 2009 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court whereby the decree passed by the learned trial court has been modified to the extent that the appellants have been directed to grant arrears only for a period of three years preceding the suit and not from RSA No.4000 of 2009 (O&M) 2 24.9.93 as claimed by the respondents. The respondents filed the suit claiming that they were regularised w.e.f. 24.9.93 and were placed in a lower scale than the other persons who were appointed on regular basis. The defence of the appellant-University was that the respondents did not have the necessary qualification and further that before their regularisation their association had undertaken that they would not seek higher pay scale. However, the learned courts below found that even with respect to other persons the requirement of qualification was relaxed. Originally there was relaxation for the respondents also but later on that relaxation order was withdrawn. On a conspectus of all these facts the courts below found that the respondents had been able to maintain a case of positive discrimination and consequently held that the action of the appellant- University in not granting them the higher pay scale was illegal. As mentioned above the learned trial court decreed suit in entirety but the learned lower Appellate Court modified the decree and granted arrears only for three years preceding the filing of the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- A) Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work can be applied in case of an employee who does not fulfil the requisite qualifications? B) Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work can be applied in the case where the employees were regularised on a wrong pay scale and after giving him relaxation? C) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation? As regards questions No. A and B, after having relaxed the qualification for similarly situated employees, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellants to argue that the respondents did not possess the necessary RSA No.4000 of 2009 (O&M) 3 qualification. Thus, questions No. A and B have to be answered against the appellants. As regards question No. C, I find that the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly considered the matter while granting relief of arrears only for a period of 3 years prior to the filing of the suit. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 06, 2009 sunita