RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

WP(C)3989/2010 & CM No.7948/2010 (stay)

1. The petitioners before me appear to be children of a lesser God. Their mass exodus in 1989, on account of threat to life and liberty caused them, to move to Delhi. The Government of the day facilitated their movement. The scale of the problem was huge. Make shift camps were set up in the Jammu and Delhi and in other neighbouring States.

2. Governments both at the Central and State level grappled with issues relating to housing, health and employment. A very proud set of people were made to ask and survive on State dole. Persons who were kings, in a manner of speech, in their own houses were overnight turned into paupers. It is a story of riches to rags.

3. It is in these circumstances that respondents reached out to the petitioners – found them employment as teachers in State run schools. These are schools run by the Municipal Corporation, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the Directorate of Education (DOE), Government of National Capital of Delhi (in short GNCTD).

4. The engagement was offered on contractual basis at (approximately) 1/3rd of the salaries paid to regularly employed teachers in these very schools. Faced with the prospect of extreme impecuniosity, petitioners accepted whatever came their way. Small mercies of God could not be declined. There were no alternatives given nor was there any scope for negotiations.

5. Each one of those who moved from the valley believed that it was a temporary phase. They were made to believe that in not too distant in point of time, they would return to their home and hearth. Alas! After nearly two and a half decades, this still seems a nebulous dream. The petitioners continue to offer their services which are identical, if not more, both in terms of quality and length (i.e., number of hours) to that of regular employees; albeit based on unequal recompense and conditions of service.

5.1 The State refuses to bridge the gap – principally on three counts: First, the petitioners are contractual employees, and thus, cannot be equated with those who are regularly employed in matter of pay, allowances and other attendant benefits. Second, the petitioners knew what they were getting into i.e., their terms of engagement. And lastly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnakata vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 stands in the State’s way to grant relief both qua regularisation and, in according, parity in pay to the petitioners.

6. Before, I proceed to examine the veracity of the stand taken by the respondents, let me narrate a few facts which would lend greater clarity to the issues at hand.

7. Petitioner no.1, is the Government Schools Teachers Association (Migrant), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The association has as its members, persons who were displaced from the Kashmir valley in the wake of internal disturbance which, as indicated above, erupted in the late 1980s. The said petitioner obtained its registration, on 03.12.1999.

8. The petitioner no.2 to 199 are those who are directly affected by the acts of omission and/or commission of the respondents herein. During the pendency of the writ petition, I am told, 12 petitioners have retired while two petitioners have expired. I propose to make a specific reference to these petitioners towards the end of my discussion.

9. It appears that on 19.06.1994, DOE under GNCTD had taken out an advertisement for employment of teachers on a regular basis for candidates who were registered with the employment exchange as on 31.05.1994. There were thus, in point of fact, sanctioned posts available even at that point in time.

10. In view of the fact that a large number of qualified teachers such as the petitioners were stationed in Delhi, the Cabinet of the GNCTD took a decision on 02.04.1994, to appoint, one member in each of the Kashmiri migrant family, who w