38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Clothing And Washing Allowance Cannot Be Different for Same Employees: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      02 December, 2019 02:12 PM      0 Comments
Clothing And Washing Allowance Cannot Be Different for Same Employees: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Courton November 29, 2019,in the case of Shambhu Sharma & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi Thr. Its Registrar General has held that all the employees of the court should be paid equal clothing and washing allowance and implementing a policy which entitles only a certain selective employees to avail its benefits is arbitrary. 

A Division Bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh observed that discrimination cannot be done between employees who were similarly placed in terms of their pay scale. As per the Delhi High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 there is no such provision that allows such discrimination.

According to Article 14of the Constitution of India,the classification of categories must be based upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes one class of persons from the other. This differentia must have a reasonable nexus to the object of classification. Only when these two conditions are met, can discrimination between persons be allowed, otherwise not.

The writ petition argued that the difference between the amount payable as allowances began when uniforms were made mandatory for all the staff of the High Court. While gazetted officers got an annual clothing allowance of INR 11,250 and a monthly washing allowance of INR 1,750, other employees only got INR 1,500 annually for clothing and INR 1,250 monthly for washing.

There was another set of employees who did not receive clothing allowances at all; instead they were getting stitched clothes. The High Court rejected reasons like the staff inside the court halls/complex was supposed to maintain decorum by being in proper uniform, higher allowance was given to employees who had to appear in public in the representative capacity for the court and it was necessary for these employees to be identifiable by their superiors in public.

The Court said that decorum should be maintained both inside the courtrooms and outside the court complex, all of which falls within the premises of the Delhi High Court and higher allowance cannot be given to certain employees only because the colour of their uniform is different. 

The Court observed that, 

The need for all employees of the High Court to be turned out well enough cannot change depending on the rank and status of such employees. Once it has been decided that there should be a prescribed uniform for the employees, the Court sees no logic in making distinctions as to the quality of the clothes and the washing allowance.

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

working-wife-with-sufficient-income-not-entitled-to-interim-maintenance-but-childs-maintenance-must-be-paid-from-date-of-application-bombay-hc
Trending Judiciary
Working Wife with Sufficient Income Not Entitled to Interim Maintenance, but Child’s Maintenance Must Be Paid from Date of Application: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Bombay High Court rules that a working wife with sufficient income is not entitled to interim maintenance; child’s maintenance must be paid from the date of application.

16 December, 2025 09:01 PM

TOP STORIES

kangana-ranaut-slams-rahul-gandhis-vote-chori-claim-in-lok-sabha-questions-evidence-on-voter-fraud
Trending Executive
Kangana Ranaut Slams Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Vote Chori’ Claim in Lok Sabha, Questions Evidence on Voter Fraud

Kangana Ranaut challenges Rahul Gandhi’s voter fraud allegations in Parliament, reigniting debate on electoral integrity and institutional trust.

11 December, 2025 06:47 PM
sc-arbitrators-mandate-ends-after-statutory-deadline-substitution-mandatory-under-section-29a
Trending Judiciary
SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends After Statutory Deadline; Substitution Mandatory Under Section 29A [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court holds that an arbitrator’s mandate ends after the statutory period expires and mandates substitution under Section 29A for continued proceedings.

11 December, 2025 06:52 PM
sc-orders-aiims-to-form-secondary-medical-board-to-evaluate-passive-euthanasia-for-man-in-vegetative-state-for-13-years
Trending Judiciary
SC Orders AIIMS to Form Secondary Medical Board to Evaluate Passive Euthanasia for Man in Vegetative State for 13 Years [Read Order]

Supreme Court directs AIIMS to form a Secondary Medical Board to assess passive euthanasia for a man in a vegetative state for 13 years.

13 December, 2025 06:00 PM
endless-compassion-not-permissible-sc-bars-claims-for-higher-post-after-compassionate-appointment
Trending Judiciary
‘Endless Compassion Not Permissible’: SC Bars Claims for Higher Post After Compassionate Appointment [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that employees cannot seek higher posts after accepting compassionate appointment, calling such claims “endless compassion.”

13 December, 2025 06:54 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email