LPA No.786 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.786 of 2009 Date of decision:29.01.2010 Nagar Panchayat Khamanon ............Appellant Versus Pardeep Kumar and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K. L. Arora, Advocate for the respondents. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. By way of present appeal, appellant/respondent No.2 in the writ petition challenging the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by learned Single Judge thereby directing the respondents to place the writ petitioners at the start of the basic pay scale of the regular employees performing the same duties like the writ petitioners for as long as they work or have worked as contractual employees and further directed to grant all benefits flowing from the order passed by learned Single Judge. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that writ petitioners were appointed on contractual basis. By way of the LPA No.786 of 2009 -2- writ petition, writ petitioners sought direction to regularize the services of the petitioners and to release salary to the petitioners at the minimum of the regular pay scale plus all allowances, arrears of salary. 3. Learned Single Judge placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (SC), 2007(4) 179, passed the impugned order. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objections that no appeal is maintainable in view of the fact that no resolution was passed by the appellant- Municipal Committee authorising the Executive Officer to file the present appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that in the present matter, appellant-Municipal Committee in its meeting held on 13.2.2009 passed a Resolution No.73 and thereby unanimously resolved to implement the impugned order of this Court in letter and spirit i.e. in toto. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant argued that resolution dated 13.2.2009 resolving not to file appeal and to implement the order of learned Single Judge was sent to the Director for approval as provided under Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911. Learned Director refused to accept the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee and issued direction to file the appeal. Hence, appeal is LPA No.786 of 2009 -3- maintainable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that appeal is maintainable since resolution passed by the Municipal Committee dated 13.2.2009 was not accepted by the Director as required under Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 and since Director directed to file present appeal. 8. The Judgment of U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) came for consideration before three Judge Bench of Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others reported in 2008 (10) SCC page 1. Hon'ble Apex Court in para 77 and 95 has observed as under:- “77. We have carefully analysed the judgment of the two Judge Bench (in Pooran Chandra Pandey case) and are of the considered view that the above reproduced observations were not called for. 95. The ratio of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 was reiterated and applied in several cases – Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 67, Surinder Singh v. CPWD (1986) 1 SCC 639, Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122, Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396 and Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 354 and it was held that even a daily wage employee who is performing duties LPA No.786 of 2009 -4- similar to regular employees is entitled to the same pay. However, in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 91, Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS (1989) 2 SCC 235, V. Markendeya v. State of A.P. (1989) 3 SCC 191, Harbans Lal v. State of H.P. (1989) 4 SCC 459, State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121, Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 619, GDA v. Vikram Chaudhary (1995) 5 SCC 210, State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77, State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 633, Union of India v. K.V. Baby (1988) 9 SCC 252, State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu (2003) 1 SCC 250, Utkal University v.Jyotirmayee Nayak (2003) 4 SCC 760, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658, Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State of Tripura (2004) 1 SCC 119, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321, Hindustan Acronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh (2007) 6 SCC 207, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara (2007) 5 SCC 326 and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engg. Consultants (India) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 710, the Court consciously and repeatedly deviated from the ruling of Randhir Singh v. Union LPA No.786 of 2009 -5- of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 and held that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc.” 9. In the present case admittedly writ petitioners were appointed on contractual basis. They have accepted contractual appointment with open eyes. They, in view of dictum of Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 and Official Liquidator (supra) are not entitled for any relief sought in the petition. 10. In view of the above, we find that judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not stand in the judicial scrutiny. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2008 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 29.01.2010 JUDGE ashish