HC reproves Punjab for frivolous litigation, failure to extend court relief to all employees

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the State of Punjab for indulging in “frivolous litigation” after asserting that the issue of grade pay for “Inspector Audits” had already attained finality. A Division Bench of the high court also took note of the State’s failure to follow binding directions in another matter that relief once granted by a court was required to be extended to all similarly placed employees.

“We deem it apposite to mention that this is a classic example of frivolous litigation on the part of the State despite the matter with regard to the grade pay of Inspector Audits having attained finality in terms of judgment of this court in the case of Pankaj Sharma and others,” the Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda asserted.

Elaborating, the Bench further asserted that the high court in the case of “Satbir Singh versus State of Haryana” had directed the States of Haryana, Punjab and the Union Territory of Chandigarh “that if a relief has been granted to an employee by an order of the court, the same ought to be extended to other similarly situated employees even though they are not party to litigation so that they are not compelled to approach the portals of this court”. The court added the judgment did not appear to have been followed by the State of Punjab.

The matter was placed before the Bench after the State and other appellants challenged a Single Bench judgment dated January 8, whereby employees were granted the pay scale applicable to other Inspector Audits working in the same department.

Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed that the case concerned Inspector Audits in the Punjab Co-operative Department. The Inspector Audits appointed prior to respondent-employees — in the petition filed by the State — had secured through litigation higher grade pay in the same pay band on par with junior auditors working in other departments.

The Bench added that Single Bench judgment dated May 11, 2017, was stated to have attained finality. “We do not find any merit in this appeal, which stands dismissed,” it concluded.