PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. vs THANA SINGH AND ORS. — C.A. No. 193/2019

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010062022011

Filing Date

22-Feb-2011

Registration No

C.A. No. 193/2019

Diary Number

6202/2011

Order Date

08-Jan-2019

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2019 INSC 30

Disposal Type

Leave Granted & Allowed

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD.

    Adv. A. VENAYAGAM BALAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THANA SINGH AND ORS.

    Adv. S. L. ANEJA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jan-2019

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 08-Jan-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 08-Jan-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

  5. 06-Dec-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 28-Nov-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 28-Nov-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

  8. 09-Oct-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 09-Oct-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

  10. 10-Aug-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 10-Aug-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 17-Feb-2017
  13. 17-Feb-2017

    Office ReportView PDF

  14. 17-Feb-2017
  15. 28-Nov-2016
  16. 28-Nov-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  17. 28-Nov-2016
  18. 23-Sep-2016
  19. 23-Sep-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  20. 23-Sep-2016
  21. 11-Aug-2016
  22. 11-Aug-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  23. 11-Aug-2016
  24. 04-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 04-Jul-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  26. 04-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 06-Apr-2016
  28. 06-Apr-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  29. 06-Apr-2016
  30. 18-Aug-2015
  31. 18-Aug-2015
  32. 29-Apr-2015
  33. 19-Feb-2015
  34. 19-Feb-2015
  35. 05-Dec-2014
  36. 05-Dec-2014
  37. 14-Aug-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 13-Feb-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 22-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 18-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 22-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  42. 02-Aug-2013
  43. 04-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  44. 04-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  45. 14-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  46. 02-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  47. 09-Nov-2012
  48. 30-Oct-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  49. 12-Oct-2012
  50. 11-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  51. 25-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  52. 08-May-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  53. 03-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  54. 17-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  55. 10-Jan-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  56. 24-Nov-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  57. 17-Oct-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  58. 09-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  59. 29-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  60. 28-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  61. 22-Feb-2011

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 193/2019

  62. [ 2019 INSC 31 ]

    JudgementView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and held that Sub Fire Officers of Punjab State Electricity Board cannot claim pay parity with Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, and Internal Auditors merely because they are grouped in the same category (Group XII). The Court found that despite being in the same group, these posts have fundamentally different duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and recruitment modes, making the claim of "equal pay for equal work" inapplicable. The Court emphasized that employees claiming pay parity must prove complete identity between posts and that determining pay equations is an executive function beyond judicial interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case