IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 541 of 1991 Date of decision: 14.07.2011 Sunil Kumar and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: None for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. At the time of filing this writ petition, the petitioners were working as adhoc employees. They had approached this Court with the grievance that fixed medical allowance of Rs. 30/-, which was being paid to the other similar placed employees, was not being paid to the petitioner. Rather their grievance was that this payment of the medical payment was stopped and the recovery of medical allowance already paid had been directed. The deduction was made in lump- sum. As is averred in the petition, the fixed medical allowance was denied to the petitioner on the ground that they are adhoc employees. It is alleged that the petitioners are continuously working and, thus, they would be entitled to all the benefits and allowances as admissible to the regular employees. It is stated that in the instructions, Annexure P-1, nothing is stated about the entitlement of adhoc employees for medical allowances. It is, accordingly, urged Civil Writ Petition No. 541 of 1991 -2- that the denial is in violation of the instructions, Annexure P-1. The State has filed reply and it is stated that fixed medical allowance for outdoor treatment is admissible to the regular employees and not to the adhoc employees. The petitioners being adhoc employees are, thus, not entitled to this allowance. The respondents, accordingly, would plead that writ petition be dismissed. In support, reference is made to letter dated 03.03.1989 issued by the Government whereby the Government had withdrawn the facility of outdoor treatment and in its place had decided to pay fixed medical allowance of Rs. 30/- to the employees. In view of this letter, it is specifically mentioned that this amount be paid to all the regular officers/officials/family pensioners. Accordingly, it is urged that such medical allowances are admissible to regular employees only. In addition to the stand reflected in the reply, Mr. Nehra has also placed before me decision rendered in CWP No. 4500 of 1991 titled as Ved Parkash and others versus State of Haryana and others decided on 05.05.2010, where somewhat similar issue was under consideration. In this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of allowances like House Rent Allowance, Rural Allowance, Project Allowance, Earned Leave and Medical Leave at par with regular employee was under consideration. After making detailed reference to number of judgments including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court has finally held that it would be difficult to hold that work charge employees are to be teated at par with regular employee for the purpose of such concessions. Even in this case the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' is also Civil Writ Petition No. 541 of 1991 -3- considered. The relevant observations are as under:- “ On the face of these authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be difficult to hold that the work charge employee are to be treated at par with the regular employee. Concededly, the petitioners are being given the scale equivalent to the regular employee. It is only the question of certain benefits which have not been paid to them. It is obvious that after having been regularised the petitioners must be receiving all these benefits. In my view, no case for grant of prayer made in the writ petition is made out. The same is accordingly dismissed.” While deciding Ved Parkash's case (Supra), reference is made to the various judgments in the cases like The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union Versus The State of Punjab and others 2008 (5) SLR 684, State of Maharashtra v. Purushottam and others AIR 1996 SC 2228, State of Gujarat and another v. Karshanbhai K. Rabari and others 2006 (6) SCC 21, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Punjab and others v. Jit Singh AIR 1997 SC 29 and State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj 2003 (4) SCT 485 (SC). In view of what has been noticed above, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is, according, dismissed. July 14, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE