Delhi High Court
Dr. T.Renuka & Ors. vs Government Of National Capital ... on 27 November, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 9063/2011
% 27th November, 2013
DR. T.RENUKA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Zeeyaul Haque, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI &
ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.Rajeshwar Rao and Mr.
Charanjeet Singh, Advocates
with Mr. Raj Kumar, Statistical
Assistant for R-1.
Mr. Nishant Nigam, proxy
counsel for Mr. Siddharth Dias,
Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioners are employees of respondent no.2-Family Planning Association of India. Family Planning Association of India has two sets of employees. One set of employees are those employees who like the petitioners became part of the department of respondent no.2 which was fully funded by the government for a family planning project. Respondent WPC 9063/2011 Page 1 of 4 no.2 is otherwise a private NGO. The second set of employees are private employees of this private NGO who do not form part of the department of the respondent no.2 which is fully funded by the government for family planning project. Petitioners claim parity with the private employees of the respondent no.2 with respect to gratuity and other terminal benefits, and for which purpose, reliance is placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.P.Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (now GNCTD) and Ors. ,in W.P.(C) No. 3007/1989 decided on 5.8.1992.
2. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has its source in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies to the State and instrumentalities of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be enforced for claiming parity by employees of the State or instrumentalities of State with the employees who work in private commercial establishments. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim parity with private employees. Even in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of M.P.Singh (supra) parity was claimed by the petitioners who were employees of the department of respondent no.2 which was fully funded by the government WPC 9063/2011 Page 2 of 4 for family planning projects, with those employees in other societies and organizations which were funded by the government for the family planning projects. In M.P.Singh's case (supra), there is no ratio laid down, and nor could any ratio be laid down that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies between government employees or employees of a State and private employees. Therefore, I reject the argument that petitioners can claim equal pay for equal work with those employees who are private employees of respondent no.2.
3. So far as the claim of the petitioners for payment of gratuity and terminal benefits similar to the benefits granted to other employees of respondent no.2 who are in the department of respondent no.2 which is fully funded by the government for the family planning project is concerned, then in that case, if the government funding and the government circulars entitle employees such as the petitioners in the department of respondent no.2 which is fully funded by the government to the grant of gratuity and other terminal benefits, petitioners shall be granted gratuity and terminal benefits in terms of the circulars and directions of the government as applicable to the employees in the department of the respondent no.2 which is working for the family planning projects.
WPC 9063/2011 Page 3 of 4
4. The writ petition is therefore dismissed so far as the claim for equal pay for equal work is concerned, however, it is allowed in terms of the directions given above so far as the gratuity and terminal benefits are concerned. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
WPC 9063/2011 Page 4 of 4