Supreme Court Directs Punjab Government to Pay Pending Dearness Allowance to Workers
The Supreme Court recently ruled on a contempt petition filed by Bahadur Singh and others against the State of Punjab, addressing the government’s failure to comply with a previous ruling regarding wage parity for temporary workers. This case revolved around the government’s obligations under the ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle and whether dearness allowance was included in the minimum pay scale.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a long-standing labor dispute where contractual and temporary employees sought pay parity with regular employees. The Supreme Court, in its 2017 ruling in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., held that temporary workers should receive at least the minimum of the pay scale applicable to their category, excluding additional allowances.
However, despite this ruling, the Punjab government failed to fully comply, prompting the petitioners to file contempt petitions in 2020. The primary issue was that while basic pay was granted, dearness allowance (DA) had been withheld.
Legal Proceedings Leading to Contempt Petition
The contempt petitions stemmed from an earlier Supreme Court ruling that settled the rights of temporary workers. The Court in Jagjit Singh recognized the principle that employees performing the same work should receive the same wages, regardless of employment status. Despite this, the petitioners argued that they had not been paid their due entitlements.
The Punjab government, in response, maintained that they had fulfilled their obligations by paying the basic pay scale, arguing that additional allowances like DA were not part of the ruling.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners’ Arguments (Bahadur Singh & Ors.)
- The petitioners asserted that the government had not fully implemented the Supreme Court’s ruling, as DA is an integral part of the minimum pay scale.
- They relied on the Supreme Court’s clarification in Tej Singh & Ors. v. Sarvesh Kaushal (2016), which explicitly stated that “minimum pay” includes basic pay, grade pay, and DA.
- They argued that by withholding DA, the Punjab government had willfully disobeyed a judicial directive, justifying contempt proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Punjab)
- The Punjab government admitted that basic pay had been disbursed but argued that DA was a discretionary allowance that required further review.
- The State assured the Supreme Court that it would examine the matter and provide relief if warranted.
- The government also cited financial constraints as a factor in the delay of full payments.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court emphasized that its earlier rulings were clear on the subject. The Court reiterated:
“We see force in the submissions made on behalf of the contempt petitioners. The amounts payable towards Dearness Allowance shall be made over to them within six weeks from today.”
The Court also addressed the petitioners’ claim that the payments made so far only covered 38 months instead of the entire eligible period. The Punjab government was directed to investigate this claim and correct any discrepancies.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-sets-aside-high-court-judgment-in-sbi-disciplinary-case/
The judgment further clarified that the State was bound by previous rulings affirming that DA is an integral part of the “minimum pay scale.”
Key Legal Precedents Considered
- State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (2017): Established that temporary workers must receive the minimum pay scale for their category.
- Tej Singh & Ors. v. Sarvesh Kaushal (2016): Defined “minimum pay” to include DA along with basic and grade pay.
The Supreme Court emphasized that withholding DA was a clear violation of these precedents.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, issuing the following directives:
- The Punjab government must pay the pending DA to all eligible workers within six weeks.
- The government must also review any shortfall in payments beyond the 38-month period and compensate affected employees accordingly.
- Failure to comply could result in further contempt proceedings.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle and ensures that temporary employees are not deprived of their rightful earnings. The key takeaways include:
- Upholding wage parity for contractual workers.
- Ensuring that state governments comply with judicial directives regarding labor rights.
- Preventing selective implementation of court rulings.
This decision is expected to provide relief to thousands of workers awaiting their dues and sets a precedent for similar cases involving government employees and wage disputes.
Petitioner Name: Bahadur Singh & Ors..Respondent Name: Jaspreet Kaur Talwar & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.Place Of Incident: Punjab.Judgment Date: 16-08-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: bahadur-singh-&-ors.-vs-jaspreet-kaur-talwar-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-08-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
