Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Satish Kumar vs Chief Secretary on 9 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 2538/2011
New Delhi this the 9th day of August, 2012
HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Mr. Satish Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Wireman,
ITI Narela,
S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan,
R/o Khasra No. 312, Aggrasem Market,
Opp. SBI Bhawan Road, Narela,
Delhi-1100040.
2. Mr. Pankaj Kumar,
Craft Instructor, I.T. Primer,
I.T.I. Narela,
S/o Shri Bharat Singh,
R/o H.No. 426, Narela Road,
(Near Dayal Market),
Near Society Building, Alipur,
Delhi-110036.
3. Mrs. Anita
Craft Instructor, F.T., I.T.I. Narela,
W/o Mr. Ashok Rathi,
R/o H. No. 68D, MU Block,
Pitampura, Delhi.
4. Mr. Yatinder
Craft Instructor, Wireman,
ITI Narela,
S/o Sh. P.C. Sharma,
R/o H. No. 38A, Sahid Chand Marg,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
5. Mr. Jitender Kumar,
Craft Instructor, ED,
ITI Narela,
R/o H.No.90, VPO-Harewali,
Delhi-110039.
6. Mr. Jitender Hudda,
Craft Instructor,
Ref. & AC, ITI Narela,
S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
R/o VPO-Dhamar, Dist-Rohtak,
Haryana-124424.
7. Mr. Ravinder Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Electrician,
ITI Narela,
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash,
R/o H.No. 561 H/3 Pana Udyan Narela,
Delhi-1100040.
8. Mrs. Megha
Craft Instructor, COPA,
ITI Mori Gate,
W/o Sh. Sachin,
R/o 24-A, Laxmi Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
9. Mrs. Nidhi Sharma,
Craft Instructor, Electronics,
ITI Mori Gate,
W/o Sh. Nishant Sharma,
R/o 139, J&K Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
10. Mr. Anand Pal Singh Malik,
Craft Instructor, COPA,
ITI Jaffarpur,
S/o Sh. Karan Singh Malik,
R/o RZE-II/24, New Roshanpura,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
11. Mr. Ashok Kumar,
Craft Instructor,
Painter (Gen), ITI Jaffarpur,
S/o Sh. Dina Nath,
R/o S-3/11, Old Mahavir Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018.
12. Mrs. Rajni,
Craft Instructor, Steno (Hindi),
ITI Jaffarpur,
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Mehra,
R/o H. No. D/26, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
13. Ms. Neetu,
Craft Instructor,
IT Primer, ITI Jaffarpur,
D/o Sh. Nanak Chand Sharma,
R/o A-14/3, Phase-II, Shyam Vihar,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
14. Mr. Rajbir,
Craft Instructor,
ST ITI Jaffarpur,
R/o Vill-Shikarpur,
PO-Daulatpur, Delhi-110043.
15. Mr. Rajesh,
Craft Instructor,
S. ST. ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Sh. Hari Singh,
R/o 45/60, East Mehram Nagar,
Delhi Cantt, Delhi-110037.
16. Mr. Gajinder Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Electrician,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Shri Mahabir Singh,
R/o VPO-Karala Mohalla Bhattpura,
Delhi-110081.
17. Mr. Ashok Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Fitter,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh,
R/o Plot No. 1290, Pana Ramayan,
VPO-Tikri Kalan, Delhi-110041.
18. Mr. Gurpreet Singh,
Craft Instructor, Scooter Mech,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh,
R/o 215, Prakash Mohalla,
East of Kailash, Garhi,
Delhi-110065.
19. Ms. Khushbu Sharma,
Craft Instructor, COPA,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
D/o Sh. D.K. Sharma,
R/o RZ-101/70A, Mohan Nagar,
Opp. D Block, Janakpuri,
Delhi-110046.
20. Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Electrician,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Sh. Prare Lal,
R/o VPO-Dalamwala,
Dist-Jind, Haryana-126102.
21. Mr. Prashant Balyan,
Craft Instructor, Electrician,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Sh. Baljit Singh,
R/o B-68A, Patel Garden Dwarka Mor,
Kakrola, Delhi-110078.
22. Mr. Suresh Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Welder,
ITI Malviya Nagar,
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh,
R/o RZ-B/188, Nihal Vihar,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110041.
23. Ms. Babita,
Craft Instructor, FT, ITI Dheerpur,
D/o Sh. Ram Lochan Singh,
R/o H. No. 391, Khasra No. 39/9,
Gali No. 05, Amrit Vihar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.
24. Mr. Brij Bhushan,
Craft Instructor, Fitter,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Lal Singh,
R/o 1/3674, Ram Nagar Extension,
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
25. Mr. Devender Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Engg. Drawing,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o B-125, Gali No. 14, Khajoori Khas,
Delhi-110094.
26. Mr. Kamal Singh Gumbra,
Craft Instructor, COPA, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o H. No. 150, C-11, Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
27. Mrs. Lekha Tomar,
Craft Instructor, FT, ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Deepak Tomar,
R/o 1023/67, Deva Ram Park,
Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035.
28. Mr. Lokesh Sharma,
Craft Instructor, Wireman, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. G.P. Sharma,
R/o 1/3367, Ram Nagar Extension,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
29. Mr. Manjeet Singh,
Craft Instructor, Ref.&AC, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh,
R/o 2086/162, Ganesh Pura-II, Tri Nagar,
Delhi-110035.
30. Mr. Manoj Sharma,
Craft Instructor, CHN, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Sharma,
R/o T-232, Shaivaji Nagar,
Street No. 7, Narela, Delhi-110040.
31. Ms. Parul Gupta,
Craft Instructor, Sect. Practices,
ITI Dheerpur,
D/o Sh. Jai Kishan Gupta,
R/o B-232, Ashok Nagar, Mandoli Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093.
32. Mr. Praveen Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Fitter, IGI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Godha Ram,
R/o 52-B, Roshnara Building,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.
33. Mr. Prem Chand,
Craft Instructor, Engg. Drawing,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Mangli Prasad,
R/o B-24, East Jawahar Nagar,
Loni Road, Gaziabad, UP-201101.
34. Mrs. Puja Gaur,
Craft Instructor, IT Primer,
ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Pradeep Sharma,
R/o C-8/225-B, Keshav Puram,
Delhi-110035.
35. Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Welder,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Dharam Bir,
R/o U-147, Lampur Road, Narela,
Delhi-110040.
36. Mr. Ram Niwas Singh,
Craft Instructor, W/S CAL.&SC.,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Munish Ram,
R/o H. No. 467, Kashmiri Bagh,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007.
37. Mr. Sachin Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Wireman,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal,
R/o RZ-26A, UG Floor,
Indira Park Extension, Part-I,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
38. Mr. Sohan Lal,
Craft Instructor, Welder,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Late Sh. Narain Ram,
R/o T-608/4B, Gali No.8,
Baljeet Nagar, Behind Shadi Pur Depot,
New Delhi-110008.
39. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Bhardwaj,
Craft Instructor, Electrician,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Indira Vidhya Vachaspati,
R/o A-43, ST.No.4, Mata Mandir Marg,
Maujpur, Delhi-110053.
40. Mrs. Somikar,
Craft Instructor, FT, ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Sameer Kar,
R/o CB-333, Ist Floor, Naraina,
Delhi-110028.
41. Mr. Sumit Kumar,
Craft Instructor, MMV, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Raj Pal,
R/o B-647/2, Gali No. 09,
Bhajan Pura, Delhi-110053.
42. Mr. Virender Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Ref. & AC, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. J.K. Sharma,
R/o V&PO Jakhauli, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana-131023.
43. Mrs. Pinki,
Craft Instructor, Social Study,
ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Anil Khatri,
R/o H.No. 40A, Pana Udyan,
Jhanda Chowk, Narela,
Delhi-110040.
44. Mr. Chandrashekhar PD. Keshari,
Craft Instructor, DEO, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh.Baidyanath Sah,
R/o B-431, 2nd Floor, Sector-1,
Rohini,
New Delhi-110085.
45. Ms. Anjali,
Craft Instructor, IT Primer,
ITI Dheerpur,
D/o Sh. Maghender Singh,
R/o H-4, Type-II, New Police Line,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.
46. Mr. Kundan Kishor,
Craft Instructor, DEO, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Ramprit Singh,
R/o H. No. 15/67, Gali No. 15,
Wazirabad Extn.,
Delhi-110084.
47. Mrs. Monika Vats,
Craft Instructor, DEO, ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Manoj Sharma,
R/o L-48A, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052.
48. Mrs. Vinita Rani,
Craft Instructor, Social Study,
ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Vipin Kumar,
R/o D-9A, Jyoti Colony, Steet No.8,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
49. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh,
Craft Instructor, Electrician, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Satnam Singh,
R/o 47, H.C. Sawan Park,
Ashok Vihar Phase-III,
Delhi-110052.
50. Mr. Gulab Singh,
Craft Instructor, Fitter,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Bhasu Lal,
R/o F-261, J.J. Colony Wazirpur,
Delhi-110052.
51. Mr. Mukesh Kumar,
Craft Instructor, S.P., ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Hari Chand,
R/o H. No. 116, Vill Bakoli, PO-Alipur,
Delhi-110036.
52. Mr. Pawan Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Fitter, ITI Jahangir Puri,
S/o Sh. Satnarain,
R/o VPO- Gandhra, Dist. Rohtak,
Haryana-124529.
53. Mr. Amarjeet,
Craft Instructor, Welder, ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o H.No. 82/6 Narwana Road Jind.
54. Mr. Girish Sharma
Craft Instructor, Scooter Mech.,
ITI Jahangir Puri,
S/o Sh. Leeladhar Sharma,
R/o 15, Shiv Mandir Gali Mojpur,
Delhi-110053.
55. Mr. Jitender Pal Singh,
Craft Instructor, Ref. & AC, ITI Jail Road,
S/o Lt. Sh. S. Gurjeet Singh Grover,
R/o WZ 147-B, Gali No. 08, Shiv Nagar,
Delhi-110058.
56. Mr. Lalit Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Scooter Mech.,
ITI Jail Road,
S/o Sh. Nand Lal,
R/o H. No. 540/18, Village & PO
Bijwasan Near, Chhuttan Nagar,
Delhi-110061.
57. Mr. Sunder Lal,
Craft Instructor, Welder, ITI Jail Road,
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal,
R/o H. No. 73, Ambedkar Colony,
Gali No. 04 Khera Khurd,
Delhi-110082.
58. Mr. Devindra Singh,
Craft Instructor, COE (IT),
ITI, Jail Road,
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o 8-D Deepa Apartment,
10, IP Extension,
Delhi-110092.
59. Miss Shikha Dwivedi,
Craft Instructor, COE (IT),
ITI Jail Road,
W/o Sh. Aditya Kumar Dwivedi,
R/o C/2/74, Sec-17, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
60. Mrs. Usha Sharma,
Craft Instructor, Social Study,
ITI Jail Road,
W/o Lt. Sh. Pardeep Kr. Sharma,
R/o B-1/144, Vishnu Garden near
Sunil Dairy, Khyala,
Delhi.
61. Miss Sarita,
Craft Instructor, Embroidery,
ITI Jail Road,
D/o Sh. Harish Singh,
R/o H. No. 86, Shahpur Jatt,
New Delhi-110049.
62. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar,
Craft Instructor, D/M/Mech.
ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o late Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o H. No. 524, Street No. 12,
Mandoli Ext.,
Delhi-110093.
63. Mr. Nirdosh Gautam
Craft Instructor, Engg. Drawing,
ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o Sh. Raj Pal Singh,
R/o D-761/9, Street No. 13,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093.
64. Ms. Deeksha Ruhil,
Craft Instructor, D/M/Civil,
ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. V.P. Ruhil,
R/o H. No. 1481, Administration Flats,
Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi-110007.
65. Mr. Yogender Sharma,
Craft Instructor, Ref.&AC, ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. B.D. Sharma,
R/o 158, A-Z, Sector-III,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
66. Miss. Priyanka Suryan,
Craft Instructor, COPA, ITI Jail Road,
D/o Mr. Babu Ram,
R/o RZ 49/397, Gali No. 7,
Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
67. Ms. Parul Tyagi,
Craft Instructor, COE-IT, IT Jail Road,
D/o Mr. R.K. Tyagi,
R/o E-92, Near Arya Samaj Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
68. Mr. Saroj Kumar Sehta,
Craft Instructor, SST, ITI Jail Road,
S/o Triveni Prasad Roy,
R/o H. No. 132, Nirankari Colony,
Near Nirankari School,
Delhi-110009.
69. Ms. Soumitra Nath,
Craft Instructor, Engg. Drawing,
ITI Nizamuddin,
D/o late Sh. Samiram Nath,
R/o F-190, Gali No. 3, Pandav Nagar,
Delhi-110091.
70. Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Engg. Drawing,
ITI Nand Nagri,
S/o Sh. Barkat Singh,
R/o B2-586, Gali No. 25, Harsh Vihar,
Delhi.
71. Mr. Praveen Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Electrician, ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o Sh.Pholwari Lal,
R/o 19/500, Trilok Puri,
Delhi-110091.
72. Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Mech. Motor Vehicle,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Mange Ram,
R/o VPO-Kheri Jat, Dist. Jhajjar,
Haryana-124105.
73. Mr. Rahul,
Craft Instructor, Mech. Motor Vechile,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o H. No. 30, Type-II, K.P.W.,
Residential Complex, Pitampura,
Delhi-110088.
74. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Bhatt
Craft Instructor, Inst. Mechanic,
ITI Nand Nagri,
S/o Sh. M.D. Batt,
R/o D-21/1, Vijay Coloni, New Usmanpur,
Delhi-110053.
75. Mr. Harjinder Singh,
Craft Instructor, W/S CAL. & SC,
ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o Sh. Harjeet Singh,
R/o 158, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
76. Mr. Arun Sharma,
Craft Instructor, Engg. Drawing,
ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal Sharma,
R/o B-184, Street No. 8, Meet Nagar,
Delhi-110094.
77. Mr. Ashwani Kumar,
Craft Instructor, Jool & DIE,
ITI Nand Nagri,
S/o Sh. Devi Prasad,
R/o M-37, Street No. 2, Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi-110052.
78. Mr. Kashmir Singh,
Craft Instructor, Electrician,
ITI Nand Nagri,
S/o Sh. L.D. Dogra,
R/o B-188/5, Amrit Vihar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.
79. Mrs. Preeti,
Craft Instructor, Electronics,
ITI Nizamuddin,
D/o Sh. Satpal,
R/o C/o K.K. Verma `Uma Villa,
WZ-1095, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
Street No. 11, Delhi-110054.
80. Mr. Kavinder Singh Bisht,
Craft Instructor, Digital/Photo,
ITI Dheerpur,
S/o Sh. B.S. Bisht,
R/o B-4/225, Sector-8, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
81. Mrs. Vibha Mehta,
Craft Instructor, Electronics,
ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. M.K. Kalra,
R/o WZ-18, Om Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi.
82. Mrs. Asha Rani
Craft Instructor, SST, ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Praveen Goyal,
R/o Flat No. 343, Pocket-05,
Sector-02, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
83. Mrs. Poonam
Craft Instructor, Electronics,
ITI Dheerpur,
W/o Sh. Ishwar Chand,
R/o D-24, A Gali No. 04,
Sadat Pur Extension,
Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-110094.
84. Mr. Dharam Pal,
Craft Instructor, W/S CAL. & SC,
S/o Mr. Lakhmir Singh,
R/o VI-Dugchari PO,
Saraswati Nagar, Distt.
Saharanpur, UP.
85. Mr. Shakil Ahmad,
Craft Instructor, W/S CAL. & SC,
ITI Nizamuddin,
S/o MD. Mojahidul Haque,
R/o S-12/4, IInd Floor,
Jamia Nagar, Delhi-110025. Applicants.
(By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra)
Versus
1. Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
IP Estate, Players Building,
New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Department of Training and
Technical Education,
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitampura, Delhi-110088. Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri N.K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G. George Paracken:
The applicants in this Original Application are Craft Instructors working on contract basis in various Polytechnics now known as ITIs with Respondent No. 2, namely, Department of Training and Technical Education which is under Respondent No. 1, namely, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. They are aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 Memorandum dated 23.05.2011 rejecting their claim to treat them at par with other contractual employees in other departments under Respondent No. 1.
2. Brief facts of the case: The applicants have been working as full time Craft Instructors on contract basis continuously from different dates ranging from 24.10.2000 to 27.01.2010. They are also fully qualified to be appointed on regular basis as per the relevant recruitment rules. But, according to them, while the contract employees in other departments under Respondent No.1 are being given various benefits arising out of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, namely, Dearness Allowance, Earned Leave (Medical Leave & Paternity Leave), Health Card facility, Transport Allowance, HRA, bonus, LTC, children education fees, etc. they have been denied them. Their contention is that such denial is contrary to the recommendations of the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of States who had held their meeting under the Chairmanship of a Secretary of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment on 10.11.2009. The relevant parts of the said recommendations are as under:
5.3 Instructor Vacancy and Training of Instructors There are large instructor vacancies in the ITIs which need to be filled up on priority. The State Governments were advised that they should engage contract faculty till the regular appointment is made. However the contract faculty should be paid consolidated emoluments equivalent to the total salary paid to a fresh instructor in the scale on regular appointment.
[Action-State Govts.]
(b) Due to large number of vacancies of instructors, most of the States have hired contract faculty. It was recommended that the contract faculty should also be deputed for various training courses being offered under the project. The faculty once trained could be useful as he remains within the system, wherever he is employed later.
[Action-State Govts.]
3. The applicants have stated that they have been making various representations to the respondents for grant of the said benefits but to no avail. They have further stated that the respondents themselves are proposing to implement the salaries of Instructors appointed on contract basis at par with regular faculty and, in fact, in some cases they have implemented the same in the cases of contractual employees in other departments. In this regard, they have annexed a copy of the order dated 30.12.2008, the relevant part of which is extracted as under:
DGE&T-19(16)/2008-CD Government of India M/o Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training Dated 30/12/2008 To, Secretaries/Principal Secretaries of all the State Govts/UT Administrations dealing with Vocational Training Directors dealing with Vocational Training of all States/UT Administrations Subject: Norms for fixing salary for appointing contract faculty in it is/ITCs.
Sir, This is to inform you that the 37th meeting of the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) under the Chairmanship Honble Minister of State for Labour & Employment (IC), was held on 23rd October, 2008. Norms for fixing salary for appointing contract faculty in ITIs/ITCs was discussed in the meeting.
The council recommended that remuneration to contract faculty in ITIs/ITCs be kept equal to consolidate monthly salary of a regular newly appointed Instructor of the Institute and that should be reflected in affiliation proforma. The Standing Committee inspecting the institute should also ensure that the salaries of instructors appointed on contract basis are at par with regular faculty. The council also recommended that it should be followed uniformly by all State Governments in all it is and ITCs.
Govt. of India accepted the above recommendation for implementation with immediate effect. You are, therefore, requested to fix the salary of contract faculty in it is/ITCs at par with the consolidate monthly salary of regular newly appointed instructor of the institute and that should be reflected in affiliation proforma.
Yours faithfully Sd/-
(R.L. Singh) Director of Training Member Secretary NCVT Copy to, Director, ATI/Chennai, Hyderabad, Bombay, Kolkata, Kanpur, Ludhiana CSTARI, Kolkata/ATI (EPI) Hyderabad & Dehradun, FTI Bangalore & Jamshedpur & NIMI Chennai.
RDAT Kanpur, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Faridabad & Hyderabad.
Director CSTARI.
Director NIMI.
Principal CTI Chennai, MITI, Haldwani, Calicut, Jodhpur, Choudwar, NVTI, New Delhi and all RVTIs.
All officers up to JDT level of DGE& (HQ).
4. The applicants have further stated that the discriminatory attitude of the respondents in following a policy of pick and choose and in its endeavour to create a class within the class among the contractual employees while granting benefits to some contractual employees and not granting to others is further manifest from the advertisement for Paramedical Staff on contract basis which specifically provides for benefit of medical leave, etc. The relevant part of the advertisement is extracted hereunder:
S.No. Name of post No. of post Age Limit Consolidated monthly remuneration (inclusive of all allowances)
1. Jr. Radiographer 02 18-27 year 5200+2400+DA as applicable
2. OT Asstt. 02 18-30 year 5200+1900+DA as applicable
3. Lab. Technician Gr. IV 01 18-27 year 5200+2800+DA as applicable
4. ECG Lab. Tech. Gr.III 01 21-27 year 5200+2300+DA as applicable
5. They have also relied upon an order of this Tribunal in OA 1706/2001 Ms. Elisha Floria Boaz Vs. GNCT in which a direction has been issued to the respondents to continue the applicant therein in service till regularly selected person is available and grant her pay scale and other service benefits as are admissible to regularly appointed staff nurse. They have also relied upon the order of the Honble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 8476/2009 with connected Writ Petitions Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Dipika S. Kumar, decided on 22.05.2009 arising out of the order of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA 1330/2007 and OA 1331/2007.
6. The applicants have further stated that they had earlier approached this Tribunal for redressal of their grievances vide OA 327/2011 Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. but the same was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2011 by remanding the matter back to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. However, the respondents, vide Memorandum dated 23.05.2011, rejected their claim by an arbitrary, sketchy and non-speaking order. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
1. The appointment will be on PURELY CONTRACT BASIS for the academic session 2009-10 or one year or as per the requirement/availability of trainees of the concerned trade in ITIs/BTC or till such time the posts are filled on regular basis through DSSSB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whichever is earlier. This will not vest any right to claim for regular appointment in the department or for continued contractual appointment.
2. The payment of remuneration will comprise of Minimum Basic Pay in PB-2+Grade Pay+DA @ 22% and will be directly linked to performance of teaching duties and work actually performed.
3. The appointee shall not be entitled to any benefits of Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity, Medical Attendance & treatment, Govt. Residential Accommodation or H.R.A. in lieu thereof or any other benefits and concessions admissible to Govt. servants.
4. The appointment will not confer upon the appointee any right or claim for regular appointment to the post and an undertaking will have to be furnished by the appointee that no court cases will be filed during or after completion of the contract period for seeking any regular appointment.
5. The appointee shall be entitled for casual leave of 8 days & 2 R.H. with the prior approval of the Principal in a year in addition to Government holidays. No other leave/vacation with or without pay will be admissible under any circumstances.
6. The candidates will not have any claim on regular post and should not approach the Court for establishing the claim towards the regular post.
The terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment are self explanatory to the points raised by the applicants. Further this year all full time contractual instructors were continued who were already engaged previous year only to comply Status quo orders of Honble CAT dated 20.02.2010 on OA 2452, 2473 and 2574 of 2010.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the applicants are claiming the arrears from the date of filing the present O.A i.e. 14.07.2011.
8. The respondents in their reply have made preliminary objections stating that as held by the Honble Apex Court in catena of cases, namely, State of Orisa Vs. Balram Sahu (2003 (1) SCC 250), State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj (2003 (6) SCC 123), Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Aziz Ahmad (2009 (2) SCC 506) and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand (2008 (10) SCC 1), simply performing the tasks or duties as those regularly employed, would not entitle the casual/contractual workers to parity of pay with regular employees. In Tilak Rajs case (supra), daily wage helpers working in Haryana Roadways claimed regularization of their services and parity of pay with regular employees on the ground that the nature of work done by both sets of employees were similar. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the daily wage workers would not be paid the regular pay scale but would be entitled to minimum pay scale with dearness allowance alone. Reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was explained by the Supreme Court as under:
10. The High Court was, therefore, not right in directing that the respondents should be paid the same salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees holding similar posts with effect from the dates when the respondents were employed. If a minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid."
11. In Harbans Lal's case (supra) and Vikram Chaudhary's case (supra), it was held that daily rated workmen were entitled to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen as prescribed and not the minimum in the pay scale applicable to similar employees in regular service unless the employer had decided to make such minimum in the pay scale applicable to the daily rated workmen.
12. In a recent case this Court in State of Orissa and others v. Balaram Sahu and others (2003 (1) SCC 250), speaking through one of us (Doraiswamy Raju, J.) expressed the view that the principles laid down in the well considered decision of Jasmer Singh's case (supra) indicated the correct position of law. It was noted that the entitlement of the workers concerned was to the extent of minimum wages prescribed for such workers, if it is more than what was being paid to them. 2002 AIR SCW 4421 : AIR 2003 SC 33 : 2002 Lab IC 3558
13. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is an abstract one.
14. "Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.
15. Judged in the background of aforesaid legal principles, the impugned judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and the same is set aside. However, the appellant-State has to ensure that minimum wages are prescribed for such workers and the same is paid to them. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. They have further stated that in the matter of Balram Sahu (supra), the Apex Court set aside the decision of the High Court of Orissa which granted non-muster roll workers, daily wage helpers and casual workers parity of pay with the regularly employed workmen. It was observed that the respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff, for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances.
9. They have also pointed out that in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006 (4) SCC 1), the principles laid down in Dayanands case (supra) have been reiterated. One of the questions that arose for consideration was whether on account of the similarity in the nature of work employees in the offices of the Official Liquidators attached to different High Courts engaged by the OLs pursuant to sanction accorded by the Court (known as `company paid staff) and whose salaries and allowances were paid from the fund created by the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation could claim parity of pay with employees regularly appointed against posts sanctioned by the Government of India in the Department of Company Affairs. The decision of the High Court granting such parity of pay by invoking the principle of `equal pay for equal work was set aside by the Supreme Court. They have further stated that in any case once the offer for contractual appointment on certain terms and conditions have been accepted by the applicants, they cannot be allowed to challenge the same.
10. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, the respondents have stated that the applicants have earlier filed OA 327/2011 (supra) before this Tribunal for granting similar allowances i.e. E/L, Medical Leave, Maternity Leave, DA, HRA, TA & CA, etc. as granted to other contract employees/regular employees under the Govt. of NCT, Delhi. The said OA was disposed of with the direction to the applicants to make a representation to the appropriate authority. Accordingly, they have made the representations which were duly considered and the competent authority after having considered rejected them vide the Annexure A-1 impugned order dated 23.05.2011. It was stated therein that the persons appointed on contractual basis could not be treated at par with regular employees. Further, the terms and conditions at the time of appointment do not include demands now raised by the applicants and as such they cannot be accepted. They have, therefore, prayed that the O.A may be dismissed.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants Mrs. Rashmi Chopra and the learned counsel for the respondents Shri N.K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi dated 22.05.2009 in Dipika S. Kumars case (supra). The said judgment was arising out of the order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in OA 1330/2007 and OA 1331/2007 which reads as under:
1. The respondents in all these petitions have sought directions to fix their emoluments on the basis of equal pay for equal work, in the light of order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1493/03 and the notification dated 12/09/02 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. It is not in dispute that similarly situated staff nurses, who were initially appointed on contract basis for a period of 89 days and whose services continued thereafter as well either by the petitioners of their own or on the strength of judicial orders, were not given the pay scales which are given to the regular staff nurses. This was the issue which arose in Civil Writ Petition No. 1493/03 and this Court directed that they are entitled to the same pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work. We also note that same issue came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1330/07 and O.A. No. 1331/07. Entire position in this behalf is summarized by the Full Bench in the following manner:
Several of the Staff Nurses initially engaged on contract basis, although were for a certain period being paid consolidated pay, as a result of the directions of the Tribunal, as upheld by the High Court, presently are getting salary as is admissible to a regular staff, in all respects. It is also pointed out that in the meanwhile there was proposal for regularization of eligibles by prescribing for a test and some of the staff nurses were successful in the selection and have been absorbed by the Establishment. But as far as the applicants are concerned, they have not been able to cross the hurdle of test. But this is altogether a different issue and in any case irrelevant for the adjudication of the present O.A. What is under challenge is the attempt of the respondents to deny the benefits of equal pay to the applicants herein on the strength of a circular, which had been issued on 03/02/2005, which, according to the respondents, have superseded the circular dated 12/09/2002. The presence of circular had been highlighted only when the matter was being heard by the Division Bench. A copy of the same has been made available to us as issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of NCT. It reads as following:
It is informed that the Finance Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, in a matter regarding grant of equal pay to contractual staff as given to regular incumbents, has decided not to pay regular scales of pay to contractual staff except the beneficiaries of Honble CAT orders. Therefore all the Head of Hospitals and Medical Institution under Government of National Territory of Delhi are hereby requested to implement the above decision of Finance Department strictly. The applicants in the O.A. have only made reference to the representations submitted by them requesting the respondents to pay the higher emoluments submitted later on. Perhaps, they have not been informed of the impediment brought by circular dated 03/02/2005. Although it is not under specific challenge, we feel that the larger question whether the applicants will be entitled to salary on par with the regular staff could be gone into notwithstanding the presence of the abovesaid circular, without driving them for further round of litigation, and overruling technicalities.
The circular would show that the attempt and effort is to confine the benefits of higher emoluments only to persons who had obtained orders from CAT. Although the respondents argue for a position that this course is legally permissible, we do not think it may be a satisfactory approach. If the circular is held as operative, it may result in.
(a) Different principles of payment of salary to persons similarly working in the same institution;
(b) There will be indirect suggestion to such employees, who could not get the benefits so far to approach the Tribunal and get orders similar to the orders, which had been secured by their colleagues.
Both the circumstances are not to be encouraged especially as coming from Governmental Authorities. Withholding of pay, declared as admissible and due to the staff members, to a section of staff cannot be considered as good governance. By becoming penny wise, the Government would be pound foolish, since the credibility of the organization and who are responsible for running it would be at stake. Therefore, as regards grant of same salary and allowance to the respondent herein, which are admissible to regularly appointed staff nurses, there cannot be any quarrel the respondents will, therefore be entitled to those benefits.
However, next question which arose for consideration is as to whether these respondents were still working on contract basis and have not been regularized can be held entitled to grant of increments as well as promotion. We are posing this question because of directions contained in judgment dated 03/07/07 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 1857/06 which is the subject matter of writ petition no. 8476/2008. These directions are in the following terms:
Taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration, we come to the conclusion that applicant is entitled to all the benefits in terms of salary, allowances, promotion etc. which have been extended to other Staff Nurses, who were recruited during the period of strike of nurses in the year 1998. The legal position in this regard is that casual or contract employees are not entitled to increments and would get pay at the minimum of the regular pay scale. In the absence of regularization, question of consideration of cases for promotion also would not arise. While that is the position in law, we have no information as to whether other Staff Nurses appointed on contract basis, who had approached the Tribunal and this Court earlier for pay parity and were granted relief, have been granted increments or not. In case the petitioner had given to those nurses appointed on contract basis benefit of increment, then it would be extended to the respondents herein as well on the principle of equality and equal treatment. However, if such a benefit has not been granted to other similarly situated staff nurses appointed on contract basis, then the respondents herein also shall not be entitled to benefit of either increment or promotion. All these writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petitioner shall work out the arrears of salary payable to the respondents in terms of aforesaid directions. Arrears will be calculated from the date when these respondents filed the O.A. If the payment is not made within two weeks, respondents will be entitled to approach the Court for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the Court.
12. Again the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 6956/2011 MCD Vs. Rakesh Kumar and Anr. decided on 07.12.2011 held in similar manner and the said judgment is reproduced as under:
1. Rule DB.
2. We have heard the matter finally with the consent of the counsels for the parties.
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has filed this petition challenging the order dated 6th July, 2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide impugned order the Tribunal has directed MCD to give all the allowances to the respondents who were contractual employees with the MCD, in parity with the similarly placed regular employees. While doing so, the Tribunal has relied upon its Full Bench/judgment which was upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8476/2009 (with connected writ petitions decided on 22nd May, 2009).
4. We may however mention that while holding that the contractual employees shall also be entitled to the same pay parity as the regular employees, it was clarified that they would not be entitled to increments and would get pay at the minimum of the regular pay scale. The following directions were given by this Court:
The legal position in this regard is that casual or contract employees are not entitled to increments and would get pay at the minimum of the regular pay scale. In the absence of regularization, question of consideration of cases for promotion also would not arise. While that is the position in law, we have no information as to whether other Staff Nurses appointed on contract basis, who had approached the Tribunal and this Court earlier for pay parity and were granted relief, have been granted increments or not. In case the petitioner had given to those Nurses appointed on contract basis benefit of increment, then it would be extended to the respondents herein as well as on the principle of equality and equal treatment. However, if such a benefit has not been granted to other similarly situated Staff Nurses appointed on contract basis, then the respondents herein also shall not be entitled to benefit of either increment or promotion. All these writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petitioner shall work out the arrears of salary payable to the respondents in terms of aforesaid directions. Arrears will be calculated from the date when these respondents filled the O.A. If the payment is not made within two weeks, respondents will be entitled to approach the Court for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the Court.
5. There is a dispute about the payment of certain other benefits like HRA, residential accommodation etc. Mr. Pawan Kumar Bahl, learned counsel for the respondents stats that the respondents shall be satisfied if they are also given the same treatment and benefits as were given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment as per the passage supra.
6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to give the benefits to the respondents in similar manner.
13. In yet another case WP (C) No. 324/2012 Department of Health and Family Welfare Vs. Pawan Kumar Goel & Ors. the High Court passed the following order on 08.05.2012:
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.07.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2945/2010 and other connected OAs. One of the OAs, which was disposed of by the common order dated 06.07.2011 was OA 3419/2010 pertaining to, inter alia Rakesh Kumar, Lab Assistant, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) 6956/2011 in respect of the original application No.3419/2010 pertaining to inter alia Rakesh Kumar. That writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and the same was disposed of by an order dated 07.12.2011. The Division Bench placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. (C) 8476/2009 and other connected matters which were decided on 22.05.2009 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Dipika S. Kumar etc. The said writ petition i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rakesh Kumar was also disposed of by an order dated 07.12.2011 in a similar manner to the earlier writ petition, namely, W.P. (C) 8476/2009 decided on 22.05.2009. Consequently, following the same, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms.
14. The Apex Court has also considered the issue in SLP No. 18552/2012 Govt. of NCTD & Ors. Vs. Raj Rani Chabra arising out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 8791/2011 and dismissed the aforesaid Special Leave Petition vide order dated 24.09.2012 with the following observations/directions:
As per the office report, the special leave petition filed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in respect of certain other similarly situated persons was dismissed on Ist October, 2009. Despite the said dismissal, the government has still chosen to file the present special leave petition, involving the same issue on 4th May, 2012.
Therefore, in the light of order dated Ist October, 2009, there is no ground to entertain this special leave petition, and the same is dismissed accordingly. Nevertheless, we would direct Principal Secretary (Law), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to file an affidavit stating the circumstances under which the present special leave petition was filed. The requisite affidavit shall be filed within four weeks from today. At this stage it is also brought to our notice that yet another special leave petition, on the same issue, being SLP (C) No. 14208 of 2009 was also dismissed on 9th July, 2009.
15. In view of the above position, this O.A. is allowed. Consequently, we direct the respondents to grant the applicants salary and other benefits as given to the other contractual employees under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. They shall also grant other benefits like Earned Leave (Medical Leave and Paternity Leave), Health Card facility, Transport Allowance, HRA, Bonus, LTC, child feets, etc. However, arrears arising out of the aforesaid direction shall be given to them from 14.07.2011 i.e. the date of filing the present O.A.
16. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall also pass appropriate orders under intimation to the applicants. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUDHIR KUMAR) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) `SRD