Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there are regular posts of the Assistant Manager (Accounts) as well as for the Store Keeper and the Bill Clerk in the Corporation with the regular pay scale. The petitioners of the writ petition have asserted in paras 14 and 14(b) as under:

"14. That, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Manager after being selected in interview on contract basis for a monthly salary of Rs.8,000.00, when there was regular sanctioned posts in the pay scale of Rs.5600-150-8600. Similarly the petitioner No.2 and 3 inducted as casual employee to work as Store Keeper and Bill clerks (Asst. Executives) in the scale of 4500-150-6600. But since the employment was on contract basis the amount under contract was only paid. But Hon'ble Supreme Court while explaining the doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work" pronounced that irrespective of status, either as casual, contractual etc. the employed person should get the minimum of the time scale available at the relevant time. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the minimum of the time scale of the posts in which they were required to work under the principle of "Equal pay for equal work", irrespective of their status whether casual, contractual or not. The respondents have unlawfully denied the pay since their appointment.

14(b) The petitioners humbly submit that at the time of engagement of the petitioners by selection by interview there were sanctioned posts in the Agartala office of the respondent which will be evident from the Inter-office-communication dated 31.10.2008".

5. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have fundamentally challenged the orders of termination dated 16.12.2011 in respect of the petitioner No.1 dated 19.12.2011 in respect of the petitioner no.2 and dated 19.12.2011 in respect of petitioner No. 3 [pages 17 to 19 of the writ petition]. The facts are mostly admitted. The petitioners were engaged on diverse days. So far the petitioner no.1 is concerned, his engagement was made on 19.08.2009 initially for two years and thereafter his engagement was extended time to time. The petitioner no.2 was engaged as a Store Keeper in the year 1996. No specific date either has been averred or is available with the records. That apart, the petitioner no.2 was a graduate when he was engaged as a casual worker to work as the Store Keeper. Similarly, the petitioner no. 3 who however, is an under-graduate was engaged as a casual worker to work as the Bill clerk in the year 1996. There is no specific averment as to the date of engagement nor is there any record bearing the day of engagement. The respondents however did not by filing their reply dispute that position of their engagement. The petitioners while questioning the orders of termination have submitted that these termination orders are not the orders simplicitor but these are fraught with vendetta for the petitioners' participation in the trade union which has been demanding regularization of the employees working in NERAMAC.