Shalu Bedi And Ors. vs Pb., Uni. Chd.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
SHALU BEDI AND ORS. ..Petitioners
Versus
PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR
..Respondent
(2) CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
MS. MONIKA AND ORS. ..Petitioners
Versus
PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR
..Respondent
Reserved on: 08.10.2026
Pronounced on : 02.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-4114-2003.
Mr. Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate
with Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur, Advocate
for petitioner Nos.7 to 12 in CWP-4114-2003
and for all petitioners in CWP-6897-2005.
Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate
for respondent-University (in both cases).
*
SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.
1. The petitioners in the present writ petitions are asking for writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant regular pay
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-2-
scale meant for post of Library Assistant from the dates the petitioners were
deprived of the same.
2. Since in petitioners are asking for the same relief in both the
writ petitions, therefore, both the above referred to writ petitions are decided
vide this common judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners in both the
above referred to writ petitions were appointed as Library Assistant in the
st
A.C. Joshi Library, Panjab University, Chandigarh. Before 31 March, 2000
the appointment of Library Assistants were made in the regular scale
admissible for the post of Library Assistant in the University i.e. Rs.5480-
st
8925/-. But after 31 March, 2000, the appointments were made in fixed
salary of Rs.4000/- per month. The grievance of all the petitioners are that
qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the petitioners are the same as of
other regular Library Assistants and that is the reason that prior to March,
2000, they were granted regular pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/- but after March
2000, they were paid fixed salary of Rs.4000/- per month. Hence, the present
writ petition.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners were granted pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/- from the date of their
appointment as Library Assistant on contract basis till 31st March, 2000. But
after 31st March, 2000 their pay was reduced /fixed to Rs.4000/- per month.
Despite the fact that qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the
petitioners are the same as other Library Assistants who are working on
regular basis in the same institution, petitioners are being paid fixed salary of
st
Rs.4000/- per month after 31 March, 2000. He therefore, prays that the
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-3-
present writ petitions be allowed and the petitioners be granted minimum of
pay scale.
5. In support of his arguments he relies on the following
judgments:-
I. State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others,
(2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, decided on 26.10.2016.
II. Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering And Technology,
Longowal Vs. Ranjit Singh and connected matters, bearing
No.LPA-1102-2024, decided on 22.04.2025.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the
petitioners have been rightly granted the fixed pay. He therefore, prays that
the present writ petitions be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
8. The only question involved in the present writ petitions is that
whether an employee performing same duties as discharged by regular
employees are entitled to minimum of pay scale.
9. The relief sought in the present writ petitions is no more res
integra. The question of law involved in the present writ petitions is
answered in favour of the petitioners by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 148, decided on 26.10.2016 , whereby, Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that temporary employees are entitled to minimum regular pay scale (along
with dearness allowance as revised from time to time) on account of their
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-4-
performing the same duties as discharged by regular employees against
sanctioned posts.
10. The relevant portion of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit
Singh and Others, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, decided on
26.10.2016 is reproduced as under:-
“ 5 . The issue which arises for our consideration is, whether
temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees,
ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis,
contractual employees and the like), are entitled to
minimum of the regular pay-scale, alongwith dearness
allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of
their performing the same duties, which are discharged
by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned
posts.
X X X X X
57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an
interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution.
The principle has been expounded through a large
number of judgments rendered by this Court, and
constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is
binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India. The parameters of the
principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42
hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’
has also been extended to temporary employees
(differently described as work- charge, daily-wage,
casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal
position, relating to temporary employees, has been
summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-5-
above legal position which has been repeatedly declared,
is being reiterated by us, yet again.
5 8 . In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine
artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An
employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less
than another, who performs the same duties and
responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an
action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very
foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled
to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He
does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the
cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self
worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that
his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not
accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as
compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of
exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering
position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary
subjugation.
5 9 . We would also like to extract herein Article 7 , of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:-
“ 7. The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of
just and favourable conditions of work which
ensure, in particular:
a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as
a minimum, with:
i. Fair wages and equal remuneration
for work of equal value without
distinction of any kind, in particular
women being guaranteed conditions
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-6-
of work not inferior to those enjoyed
by men, with equal pay for equal
work;
ii. A decent living for themselves and
their families in accordance with the
provisions of the present Covenant;
b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be
promoted in his employment to an
appropriate higher level, subject to no
considerations other than those of seniority
and competence;
d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with
pay, as well as remuneration for public
holidays.”
India is a signatory to the above covenant, having
ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from
the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the
Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law
declared by this Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, the principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ constitutes a clear and unambiguous right
and is vested in every employee – whether engaged on
regular or temporary basis.
. 60 Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to
the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage
employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on
casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the
sole factor that requires our determination is, whether
the concerned employees (before this Court), were
rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-7-
being discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require
the application of the parameters of the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ summarized by us in
paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant
aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us
to record the factual position. We say so, because it was
fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing
the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in
the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against
posts which were also available in the regular
cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the
course of their employment, the concerned temporary
employees were being randomly deputed to discharge
duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time,
were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular
employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to
discharge the same work, which was assigned to
temporary employees, from time to time. There is,
therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and
responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees
in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being
discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the
appellants, that the respondent-employees did not
possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on
regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State,
that any of the temporary employees would not be
entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles
summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There
can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned
temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to
claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-4114-2003 (O&M)
CWP-6897-2005 (O&M)
-8-
regularly engaged Government employees, holding the
same post.
. 61 In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing
paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the
concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of
cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of
the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-
scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same
post.”
11. In view of the above, both the above mentioned writ petitions
are allowed . Petitioners are held entitled to minimum of pay scale from the
date they are being granted fixed pay of Rs.4000/- per month along with
interest @12% per annum. Since the present writ petitions pertain to the year
2003 and 2005, therefore all the petitioners are directed to approach the
respondents with the dates on which they were appointed on contract basis
and from date they were granted fixed pay of Rs.4000/- per month.
Thereafter, the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the minimum
of wages from that date along with interest @12%.
12. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
02.11.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
SAHIL JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SAHIL
2026.11.04 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.