Gujarat State Rural Deve. Corpo. Ltd. vs Upendrakumar J. Rao on 4 July, 2006
In such circumstances, it is necessary to consider the situation of workman having financial crisis, not able to get the job though qualified in right time, responsibility of the family to maintain and in absence of job, it is very difficult to maintain the family. These are the hard reality attached to the workman when he was demanding the job from the Corporation. Therefore, choice exercised by compulsion was not choice at all. This view has been taken by Delhi High Court in case of Neema Tiwari and Ors. v. MCD and Anr. reported in 2006 II CLR 485 wherein it has been held that decision of petitioners to accept employment on fixed salary could not be held against them when Corporation utilized their services as a primary teacher for number of years and not paying the regular salary to such primary teachers, the Delhi High Court has directed to the authority to pay the regular salary to such primary teachers, those who are working on fixed salary. This being the position of the respondent workman, when he was called for regular employment in a regular salary by the Corporation, after completing viva-voce test, offer was made for fixed salary. For workman compulsion was there, therefore, he was not having any choice to say no to the Corporation. Therefore, the contention raised by petitioner that he was appointed on fixed salary for a period of six months, for a particular project are totally irrelevant submissions and contrary to the record and, therefore, such submission are rejected.