The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition by the Chandigarh Administration challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that granted a part-time Class-IV employee the minimum pay scale of the Group-D post he holds.

The Court said the Administration had extended the same benefit to almost all similarly placed part-time employees.

A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav held that "similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently without a reasonable basis", and that the Administration could not continue the benefit for one set of part-time employees while denying it to another of the same class.

The Administration challenged the Tribunal's order dated 03.02.2025, which granted Nanu Ram, the first respondent, the minimum of the pay scale of the Group-D post against which he works. It argued that the benefit was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (Civil Appeal Nos. 5689-5690 of 2021).

The Administration engaged personnel on a part-time basis for Class-IV duties that are still required. Part-time appointees work six hours a day, while regular employees work eight. The respondent has worked with the Administration for 23 years, paid throughout at DC rates.

Counsel for the respondent said the Tribunal had already granted the same benefit to similarly situated part-time Class-IV employees, and that they continue to receive it. The Tribunal allowed the respondent's claim on that basis.

The Administration's counsel submitted that the Supreme Court in Ilmo Devi had allowed the benefit to continue for the employees before it. He argued, however, that it might not be admissible to the respondent. In his submission, the Tribunal should have examined that question rather than rely on the fact that similarly situated employees already had the benefit.

The Bench noted that the minimum of the pay scale had been extended to Class-IV employees working up to six hours a day in light of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013). There, the Supreme Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" gives temporary employees a right to wages at par with the minimum of the pay scale of regular employees on the same post.

The Court then referred to Ilmo Devi, there, the Supreme Court had observed that part-time wage earners working four to five hours a day cannot claim parity with Group-D employees. It nonetheless declined to quash the High Court's direction for the respondent-employees in that case, in view of its earlier interim order. The Bench said that benefit had not been withdrawn and had been extended by the Administration to similarly situated employees.

On the question of parity, the Bench observed that "almost all" part-time employees have received the benefit, except the respondent, who alone approached the Court. Having extended it to others, the Administration cannot deny it to a similarly situated employee "unless there is some valid distinction between them."

The Bench also noted that the law on part-time service has since changed. The High Court had directed regularisation of part-time employees of the Administration who had worked for more than two and a half decades, and that direction was upheld in light of Jaggo v. Union of India (SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024). It reproduced the Supreme Court's observations there that Uma Devi has been misapplied to deny the claims of long-serving employees, and that government departments should lead by example in providing fair and stable employment.

Once part-time service is treated as valid service even for regularisation, the Bench said, refusing the minimum of the pay scale merely because the work is part-time must be reconsidered in light of these developments. This is particularly so for a lone employee left out despite orders in favour of similarly placed colleagues.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, decided on 31.01.2025) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, decided on 19.08.2025). It noted that in these cases, part-time service was considered for regularisation even where the initial appointment was contrary to the rules, without the requisite qualifications and without a regular post.

The Court found no ground to deny the respondent at least the minimum of the pay scale and no ground for interference. It dismissed the petition on 24.08.2026.

Case Title: Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Nanu Ram and Another

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Premi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Click here to read order