Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 235
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Digam Singh
Versus
Anshu Prakash & Others
W.P.(C) 1254 of 2012
Decided on : 25-02-2013
For the Petitioner:Amit Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Zubeida Begum, Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocates.
The court clarified the limitations of the concept of a continuing wrong in the context of contractual employment and emphasized the distinction between contractual and regular employees in terms of entitlement to increments.
Headnote:
equal pay for equal work - Contractual Employment - Contempt of Courts Act - [Section 20] - [Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act] - The court discussed the principle of equal pay for equal work and the concept of a continuing wrong in the context of contractual employment. It highlighted the limitations of the concept of a continuing wrong in the case of a contractual employee seeking enforcement of a judicial verdict in a contempt proceeding. The court also referred to various decisions and legal principles to analyze the petitioner's claim for annual increments and the concept of a continuing offence in the context of contempt proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractual paramedic, claimed violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work and non-payment of annual increments. The Tribunal directed payment of pay and allowances at par with regular employees, but the petitioner alleged non-payment of annual increments. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the grounds of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for annual increments was not supported by the original order, which only directed payment of wages and allowances at par with regular employees. The court also referred to previous decisions and opined that contractual employees may not be entitled to increments unless similarly situated contractual employees were granted such benefits.
Issues: Violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work, non-payment of annual increments, and the applicability of the concept of a continuing wrong in a contempt proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the limitations of the concept of a continuing wrong in the context of contractual employment and emphasized that the original order did not direct the payment of annual increments. It also highlighted the distinction between contractual and regular employees in terms of entitlement to increments.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the restoration of the contempt petition was deemed useless.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The writ petitioner was appointed, on contract basis, as a qualified paramedic by Government of NCT of Delhi on July 23, 1998 and the terms of engagement were that he would be paid a fixed amount each month. The engagement continued with a break of one day after 89 days each and the writ petitioner filed OA No.2235/1999 praying before the Tribunal that the principle of equal pay for equal work was violated. The said petition registered as OA No.2235/1999 was disposed of by the Tribunal directing that on the principle of equal pay for equal work the petitioner should be paid pay and allowances at par with regular employees with effect from March 2000.
2. As pleaded in para 4(vi) of the writ petition, respondents started paying salary and allowances to the petitioner as were given to the regular employees but without any increment. We note the pleadings in para (vi). They read as under:-
“(vi) It is submitted that in partial compliance of the order of the Tribunal the respondents started giving allowances to the petitioner as was being given to the regular employees but failed to give the annual increment in the salary as afforded to the regular employees similarly situated.”
3. But, the practice of disengaging service by a day and taking back the petitioner on contract basis continued compelling petitioner to file yet another Original Application registered as OA No.1566/2003 which was disposed of on September 29, 2003 directing that the respondents would be bound by the directions issued in OA No.2235/1999 and further that till regular appointments were made, the services of the petitioner would not be disengaged.
4. In the year 2010 the petitioner filed a contempt petition registered as CP No.737/2010 disclosing therein that whereas DA, HRA, CCA, TA and PCA were being released to him, increments in the basic pay were being denied.
5. The contempt petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated November 08, 2011 and the view taken is that limitation as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Since violation alleged was of the order passed by the Tribunal on July 24, 2001 (somewhere referred to as April 24, 2001) the contempt petition filed was barred by limitation. The petitioner challenges before us the order dated August 08, 2011.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner refers to the under-noted nine decisions to bring out the point that a matter pertaining to payment of wages would be treated as a continuous cause of action and right can be imposed any time:-
(a) (1995) 5 SCC 628 M.R.Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.; (b) (2008) 8 SCC 648 Union of India v. Tarsen Singh; (c) (2010) 12 SCC 538 State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava; (d) 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 418 Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram & Ors. (e) 2000 Cri.L.J. 2709 Lopaben Patel v. Hitendra Rambhai Patel; (f) (2009) 154 PLP D-13 Santosh Kapoor v. Apex Computers P. Ltd.; (g) 1991 RLR 410 Master Dhruv Goyal v. Anand Perkesh; (h) 2002 (2) Bom C.R. 459 Nagdevi Kamgar Sabha v. Hiralal Maganlal & Co. & Ors.; (i) 2003 Cri.L.J. 746 Ratan Chandra Sharma & Anr. v. Kum.Sheetal Sharma.
7. But the argument overlooks the fact that the decisions pertained to an original action brought before the Court having a bearing on wages and the law declared is that as long as an issue pertaining to wages is not decided, an employee having a grievance can approach a Court any time. Upon the claim succeeding the Court would not direct such payments where claim would be barred by limitation when the person approached the Court. The instant situation is entirely different. The petitioner already has a judicial verdict in his favour and in contempt proceedings he was seeking enforcement of said judicial verdict.
8. Let us trace the concept of a continuing wrong and the associated problem in identifying as to which offence would be
