Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 20 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR199
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: H.S. Bedi, Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioners in the same manner as regular appointees working on the similar posts and doing the similar work and also for further directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners.
2. The petitioner have stated that they were appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad-respondent No. 2 on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2080/- per month as English Steno-typists in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad with effect from April 1, 1999. In fact the petitioners were appointed on contract basis by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 2 till such time as a regular appointee came in their place. Although they were appointed against regular posts available in the office of the Deputy Commissioner which could not be filled because there was a ban on fresh recruitment. However, since the persons were required for the smooth functioning of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis. However, while making appointment of the petitioners, a condition was imposed that they were to get a fixed salary of Rs. 2080/- per month and no TA-DA would be paid to them.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Steno Typists-cum-Clerks and are doing full time job and are doing all the duties assigned to them which are similar as are being done by the regular appointees. The petitioners further stated that the working hours of the petitioners are similar to that of regular appointees and their duties and responsibilities are also similar as that of the regular appointees. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the aforesaid facts that there was no distinction in the nature of duties, work and responsibilities of the petitioners viz-a-viz the regular appointees but still the petitioners are being paid a fixed salary of Rs. 2080/- per month and also no other benefits like TA7DA etc are admissible to them.
4. Although a further claim has been made by the petitioners for regularisation of their services, since it has been stated that the petitioners were also selected through a regular process, but during the course of arguments, Shri Surinder Dhull, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners give up their claim for regularisation at this stage and would confine their prayer in the present writ petition only to the grant of pay parity to them viz-a-viz the regular appointees.
5. On a notice issued to the respondents, a written statement has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 contesting the claim of the petitioners. The defence taken in the written statement is that since the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and there was specific stipulation in the contract that they were to get the fixed salary of Rs.
2080/- per month, therefore, they could not make any grievance in this regard and were estopped from filing the present petition. It has further been stated in the writ petition that since the petitioners themselves had accepted the offer of appointment along with terms and conditions and had joined the office of the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, they cannot claim the benefit of regular scale. It has further been stated that the petitioners had no cause to claim regularisation on their posts as they were appointed on con tract basis.
6. We have heard Shri Surinder Dhull learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Amol Rattan, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
7. We find that the claim made by the petitioners is well founded and is based on the principles of "equal pay for equal work". It is not disputed that the petitioners are working as Steno Typists-cum-Clerks and are performing the full time job and doing all the duties which are being done by the regular appointees on the similar posts. The working hours of the petitioners are also similar to that of the regular appointees. The only reason that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis and on fixed salary of Rs. 2080/- with no other benefit like TA/DA was that there was a ban on the fresh recruitment. However, since there was need to appoint persons for the smooth functioning of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, therefore, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis The claim made by the petitioners is fully covered by the Full Bench decision in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2002-1)127 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.).
8. Thus, in these circumstances, we allow the present writ petition and while quashing the order Annexure P/2, allow the claim of the petitioners for "equal pay for equal work" viz-a-viz regular appointees and direct that the petitioners would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scales which is being given to the regular employees which are similarly situated as the petitioners. Since the petitioners have themselves given up their claim for regularisation, the prayer made by them in this regard is declined. No costs.
Sd/- H.S. Bedi, J.