Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7391-7395/2013

State of Haryana and another etc. ..Appellants versus

Mohinder Singh and others etc. ..Respondents WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.        OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.6159-6163/2014

civil appeal no. 8993 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI

The  respondents  before  this  Court  were  engaged  as conductors and drivers under statutory rules, framed by the State of Haryana, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.  Under the concerned statutory rules, even though conductors and drivers were engaged after following due process, they were paid different wages.  Their initial wages were paid by treating them as daily wagers, their wages were then enhanced by treating them as contract labourers, and finally, they were paid regular wages in the regular pay scale.  2. 195 of such employees preferred writ petitions before the High Court, seeking wages in the regular scale of pay, with effect from  the  date  of  their  entry  into  service.   All  those  writ petitions came to be disposed of, by a common order dated 1.4.2013

Page 2

2

(or by placing reliance on the said order).  The operative part of the above order, is being extracted hereunder:

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that placing the petitioners on consolidated salary is impermissible and the rules to this extent are unconstitutional and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The placing of the petitioners in pay scales meant for Grade-II and  two  years  thereafter  in  Grade-I  cannot  be permissible.  The  petitioners,  thus,  would  be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale from the date of their initial appointments and their pay shall  be  fixed  accordingly.  However,  insofar  as arrears of pay are concerned, they will be entitled to  the  arrears  for  three  years  and  two  months' period  prior  to  the  date  of  filing  of  these petitions.”

(emphasis is ours) 3. It is further imperative for us to indicate, the basis on which the High Court arrived at the above decision.  Accordingly, a relevant part of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the reasons stand recorded, is being extracted hereunder:

“11. The admitted facts, which are appearing  on record,  are  that  the  recruitment  rules  for appointment to the posts of Drivers and conductors are  same  whether  they  are  appointed  on  contract basis initially or are given the pay scales after rendering  the  services  for  specified  number  of years.  All  these  petitioners  fulfil  those eligibility conditions contained in the recruitment rules. It is also an admitted position on record that  there  was  a  proper  selection  procedure followed by issuing the advertisement and making the  selection  through   the  Staff  Selection Board/Service  Commission.  The  petitioners  were selected on merits. From day one they started doing the job of Driver and Conductor which is the same as  performed  by  the  Drivers/Conductors  who  are placed in the regular pay scale. It is, thus, not in  dispute  that  the  posts  in  question  were advertised  for  open  competition  for  direct recruitment and all the petitioners were appointed through  the  selection  process  made  by  the  Staff Selection  Commission  after  giving  opportunity  to each and every eligible person. The only reason for putting  them  on  contract/fixed  salary  in  the

Page 3

3

beginning  and  bringing  them  on  the  regular  pay scale  after  they  render  service  for  specified period  is  that  the  provisions  are  made  with objective to recruit best Drivers and Conductors who  can  provide  best  services  to  the  commuting public.  It  is  not  understood  as  to  how  this objective is achieved by putting the Drivers and Conductors  initially  on  the  fixed  salary  and bringing them in graded pay scales after 4/6 years. The  aforesaid  objective  can  well  be  achieved  by putting  the  Drivers  and  Conductors  after  their appointment  initially  on  probation  and  watching their  work  and  conduct  during  the  period  of probation.  The respondents have not been able to dislodge the weighty and meritorious  contention of the petitioners that paying different salary even after getting same work offends the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.”

(emphasis is ours) 4. The judgment rendered by the High Court on 1.4.2013, has been assailed by the State of Haryana, by filing a large number of special leave petitions. Leave was granted in all the special leave petitions, except special leave petition (C) Nos.6159-6163/2014. Leave is hereby granted, in the aforesaid special leave petitions, as well.  Even though, an impression was made out, that the State of  Haryana,  was  assailing  the  determination  rendered  in  the impugned order on merits, yet the aforesaid impression is clearly dispelled by a perusal of the affidavit dated 5.8.2014 (filed by the Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana), before this Court. A relevant extract of the aforesaid affidavit, is being reproduced hereunder:

“4. That to resolve the issues of drivers and conductors of the Transport Department, a meeting of the representatives of the State Government and representatives  of  Haryana  Roadways  Workers Coordination  Committee  consisting  of  various registered  unions  of  the  employees  was  held  on 21.01.2014, in which a Mutual Agreement was entered upon.  A  copy  of  the  said  mutual  agreement  is

Page 4

4

Annexed as Annexure 'A-I'. 5. That  after  the  Mutual  Agreement  dated 21.01.2014,  the  Council  of  Ministers,  in  its meeting held on 24.6.2014, has taken the decision with regard to grant of regular pay scale to the drivers  and  conductors  of  Haryana  Roadways appointed  under  the  Haryana  Transport  Department (Group C) Haryana Roadways Service (Amended) Rules, 2003 as amended thereafter from time to time. 6. That after the decision of the Council of Ministers,  the  Principal  Secretary  to  Govt.  of Haryana Transport Department has issued directions vide memo no.1/82/2012-1 T(ii) dated 25.6.2014 to implement  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  the Ministers. Copy of the instructions dated 25.6.2014 is enclosed as Annexure 'A-2'. 7. That  the  State  Government  vide  the instructions dated 25.06.2014 has decided that as per the agreement reached on 21.01.2014 between the representatives  of  State  Government  and  the representatives  of  various  Employees  Unions,  the drivers  and  conductors  of  Haryana  Roadways recruited  after  01.01.2003  under  the  Haryana Transport  Department  (Group  C)  Haryana  Roadways Service  (Amended)  Rules,  2003  as  amended subsequently in 2004 and 2011, who have submitted their affidavits will be paid the regular pay scale of the relevant post from the date of their initial recruitment up to 31.12.2013. The benefit will be allowed to those drivers and conductors who have submitted  their  affidavits  as  per  the  agreement signed on 21.01.2014 and those who now submit the affidavits. The salary of July, 2014 will be paid at the revised rates as per the agreement and the arrears for the period January, 2014 to June, 2014 will  be  paid  in  August/September,  2014.  After allowing the regular pay scales to the drivers and conductors,  an  application  will  be  filed  in  the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying for the disposal of the SLPs in terms of agreement. 8. That  the  abovesaid  decision  of  the  State Government  has  been  taken  as  a  golden  handshake keeping  in  view  the  larger  public  interest  and welfare of the employees. The implementation of the said Mutual Agreement will give quietus to the long pending issue of payment of regular pay-scale to the drivers and conductors of the department. Grant of regular pay scale to these employees would also be in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble

Page 5

5

Punjab and Haryana High Court under challenge in the abovesaid SLPs. However, the arrear allowed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would put huge financial burden on the State Exchequr. It is pertinent  to  submit  that  these  employees  were appointed under the service rules legally framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of the India and  do  not  have  any  vested  right  to  claim  the regular pay scale and the arrears. 9. The majority of the drivers and conductors have  expressed  their  willingness  to  forgo  the arrears in case they are granted the regular pay scale as per Mutual Agreement dated 21.01.2014 and decision of the State Government vide instructions dated 25.6.2014.”

(emphasis is ours) 5. Learned counsel representing the State of Haryana pointed out, that out of the 195 conductors and drivers, who had approached the  High  Court,  the  settlement(referred  to  in  the  affidavit extracted hereinabove), was accepted by 65 of such employees (who had  approached  the  High  Court).   The  remaining  challenge,  is therefore limited to 130 respondents (who had approached the High Court) herein. 6. In  conjunction  to  the  factual  position,  noticed hereinabove, it is also necessary to appreciate, that the State of Haryana, at its own, accepted and implemented the judgment rendered by  the  High  Court,  even  with  reference  to  such  conductors  and drivers, who had not approached the High Court, for any relief. The above judgment has been implemented, so as to allow the regular pay scale to all conductors and drivers, with effect from the date of their appointment, with the overriding condition that arrears would be payable with effect from 1.1.2014.  In the instant view of the matter, it is apparent, that there is no serious dispute with

Page 6

6

reference  to  the  challenge  made  at  the  hands  of  the  State Government, on the merits of the determination rendered by the High Court. We therefore hereby affirm the judgment rendered by the High Court, insofar as the merits of the controversy is concerned. 7. Even otherwise, we are satisfied, that a challenge to the determination rendered by the High Court, with reference to the wages payable to the concerned employees, under the principle of equal pay for equal work, as has been expressed by the High Court, is in consonance with the legal position on the subject, declared by this Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, and calls for no interference.  8. What remains for adjudication, is the direction contained in the impugned judgment, that arrears would be payable to the appellants, who approached the High Court, for a period of three years and two months, prior to the date of their filing petitions before the High Court. It is this aspect of the matter, which is seriously contested by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was the submission of the learned counsel, that the appellants, while disbursing wages to the respondents, had paid them wages, as were due to them, in consonance with the statutory rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.  It was therefore submitted, that the appellants cannot be accused of having been unfair to the respondents.  It was also submitted, that the State of Haryana, despite the extreme financial burden, had unilaterally adopted the judgment, and had agreed to pay arrears of wages, with effect from 1.1.2014.  It was submitted that, wages had indeed been released to all conductors and drivers, in consonance with the

Page 7

7

impugned judgment, even to those who had not approached the High Court.  It was however acknowledged, that arrears had been paid only, with effect from 1.1.2014.  It was further submitted, that wages have also been released to 65 of the appellants, who had approached  the  High  Court,  in  consonance  with  the  impugned judgment, with effect from 1.1.2014, as they agreed to execute a settlement with the appellants, by conceding to accept arrears only with effect from 1.1.2014.  It was therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Haryana, that it would be not only just and appropriate, but would also be fair, to extend arrears to all the respondents, only for the period commencing from 1.1.2014. It was also submitted, that payment of arrears for any further time, would cause extreme financial hardship, to the State.  It was also contended, that it would be almost impossible to pay wages to the respondents, for a period of three years and two months, prior to the date of their filing petitions, before the High Court. 9. As against the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants, it was the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the course adopted by the High Court, was in consonance with the declared position of law, inasmuch  as,  the  High  Court  had  taken  into  consideration,  the period  of  limitation,  over  which  a  monetary  claim  could  be accepted.   It  was  also  the  assertion  of  the  learned  counsel representing the conductors and drivers, that the State Government became alive of the claim raised by the respondents, on the very date the respondents approached the High Court.  It was submitted, that a fair government, would have accepted the employees' just

Page 8

8

demand, and would have released their wages, as were rightfully due to them, at its own. The fact, that the appellants were conscious of the genuineness of the claims of the conductors and drivers, it was pointed out, was apparent from the fact, that the appellants have not challenged the impugned order on merits, and that, the benefit of the judgment has been extended to even those employees who had not approached the High Court, unilaterally by the State Government.  It  was  submitted,  that  the  action  of  the  State Government  in  contesting  the  claim,  which  was  rightful  and legitimate, cannot be accepted from a welfare State. 10. We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration,  to  the submissions advanced at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties. The only question, that arises for consideration at our hands, is the date from which arrears should be released to the respondents.   Insofar  as  the  instant  aspect  of  the  matter  is concerned, during the course of hearing, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel representing the State of Haryana, had invited our attention to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein, on the subject in question, this Court had observed as under:

”55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were  respectively  appointed.  The  objection  taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone  wrong  in  directing  that  these  employees  be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the

Page 9

9

dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether   these  employees  were  entitled  to  have equal  pay  for  equal  work  so-called  and  were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are,  therefore,  of  the  view  that,  at  best,  the Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  should  have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.”

(emphasis is ours) Having perused the determination rendered by this Court in the Umadevi's case (supra), we are satisfied, that in terms of the above judgment, arrears should have been held, to be payable to the respondents,  only  with  effect  from  the  date  when  the  impugned judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court, i.e., with effect from 1.4.2013.  We are indeed bound to follow the aforesaid  declared  position,  by  the  Constitution  Bench  of  this Court.  More  so  because,  the  legal  position  on  the  subject  was uncertain, in view of the conflicting position reflected on the subject, by different judgments of the High Court.  The correct legal  position  was  declared  for  the  first  time,  through  the impugned judgment, which also held the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution as unconstitutional, to the extent of payment of wages. It is on the above and allied consideration, that  we  feel,  that  it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  extend  the

Page 10

10

benefits of arrears to the respondents, keeping in view the period of limitation, for payment of monetary claims.  In view of the above, we hereby dismiss all the civil appeals on merits.  Insofar as  the  payment  of  arrears  is  concerned,  the  impugned  order  is modified, and a direction is hereby issued, that arrears will be paid to the respondents with effect from the date of the impugned judgment, namely, with effect from 1.4.2013. 11. While determining the issue, as to from which date the arrears should be paid to the respondents, this Court cannot be oblivious to the rights of those, who had not approached the High Court or this Court, nor can it be oblivious to the rights of those persons,  who  had  entered  into  a  settlement  with  the  State Government, and had accepted arrears, with effect from 1.1.2014. It is imperative for us, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice in the matter.   We  feel  ourselves  persuaded,  to  direct  the  State Government,  to  pay  arrears  of  wages,  to  all  persons  similarly situated as the private respondents herein, in consonance with the impugned judgment, with effect from 1.4.2013, this would include those  employees  who  had  not  approached  the  High  Court  or  this Court, as well as, those who had entered into a settlement with the State Government, agreeing to accept arrears only with effect from 1.1.2014.  Ordered accordingly.

…...................CJI [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …....................J. JANUARY 31, 2017. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD]

Page 11

11

   ITEM NO.301               COURT NO.1               SECTION IV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).  7391-7395/2013 STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ETC.                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC.                         Respondent(s) (with appln(s) for impleadment and intervention and exemption from  filing official english translation and directions and interim  relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 6159-6163/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and  Interim Relief) C.A. No. 8993/2014(with interim Relief)   Date : 31/01/2017 These appeals/petitions were called on for  

       hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Appellant(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. (State of Haryana) Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG

Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv.

                  Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.                                          Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjeet Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kr. Verma, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Rathee, Adv. for Mr. Satyendra Kumar,AOR

                  Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv. Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv. Mr. Hemraj Tewatia, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Khatana, Adv. for Mr. Sudhir Naagar,AOR

Page 12

12

Mr. Suraj Prakash Ahlkawat, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Malik, Adv. for Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma,AOR Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv.   for Dr. Kailash Chand,AOR

                                       Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv.                     for Ms. Usha Nandini. V,AOR

Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Adv. Mr. Surender Singh, Adv. for Ms. Usha Nandini. V,AOR

                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos.6159-6163/2014. The  appeals  are  dismissed  on  merits  in  terms  of  the

Reportable  judgment.  Insofar  as  the  payment  of  arrears  is concerned,  the  impugned  order  is  modified,  and  a  direction  is hereby issued, that arrears will be paid to the respondents with effect from the date of the impugned judgment, namely, with effect from 1.4.2013.

While determining the issue, as to from which date the arrears should be paid to the respondents, this Court cannot be oblivious to the rights of those, who had not approached the High Court or this Court, nor can it be oblivious to the rights of those persons,  who  had  entered  into  a  settlement  with  the  State Government, and had accepted arrears, with effect from 1.1.2014. It is imperative for us, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice in the matter.   We  feel  ourselves  persuaded  to  direct  the  State Government,  to  pay  arrears  of  wages,  to  all  persons  similarly situated as the private respondents herein, in consonance with the impugned judgment, with effect from 1.4.2013, this would include those  employees  who  had  not  approached  the  High  Court  or  this Court, as well as, those who had entered into a settlement with the State Government, agreeing to accept arrears only with effect from 1.1.2014.  Ordered accordingly.

In view of the above, no further orders need be passed on the  applications  for  impleadment/intervention,  and  they  are disposed of accordingly.   (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar                       AR-cum-PS

[Reportable Judgment is placed on the file]