High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jai Kumar Mann v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-8619-1999  RD-P&H 2842 (3 May 2006)
CWP No. 8619 of 1999
Date of decision 8.5..2006
Jai Kumar Mann .. petitioner
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner M.M.Kumar, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for the relief of granting the pay scales which are given to regularly appointed Medical Officers. It is admitted position that petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a fixed salary of Rs.8000/- p.m. and the claim made in the petition is that he be given the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f. 6.11.1997. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Dalel Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 13416 of 2001 decided on 29.8.2002) The afore-mentioned judgement has placed reliance on an earlier Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others ( Civil Writ Petition No. 7135 of 1998 decided on 27.8.1998). It has been represented that large number of Special Leave Petitions/ Appeals are pending before the Supreme Court which have arisen out of the afore-mentioned judgement. However, we regret our inability to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner because in a Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006(4) SCC 1 it has now been laid down that the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be invoked by those who have been appointed on contract basis. The afore-mentioned position is evident from the reading of para 44 of the judgement. The Constitution Bench has also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench would stand denuded of their status as precedents. The afore-mentioned position has been clarified in para 54 of the judgement.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. 5.2006 Judge okg
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.