IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees, emphasizing that employees engaged in the same work should not be paid less than others, and the principle is applicable to all employees, whether engaged on a regular or temporary basis.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The challenge in this petition is to an order dated May 17, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in OA 4034/2013, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioners herein.

2. The claim of the petitioners before the Tribunal was seeking the same pay and benefits as are being paid to regular staff nurses working in the respondent-AIIMS. It was their case that they were appointed as staff nurses on contract basis by the respondent initially on a monthly salary of Rs.11,750/- which was later increased to Rs.28,000/-. It was further their case before the Tribunal that the staff nurses working on regular basis in respondent received a total salary of Rs.56,800/-.

3. The petitioners had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Victoria Massey & Ors. v. Government of NCT, W.P.(C) 8764/2018 dated May 22, 2009, wherein this Court, while modifying an order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal held that staff nurses/paramedics appointed on contract basis, would be entitled to wages in the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees. The challenge made before the Supreme Court against the judgment by the Government of NCT of Delhi was also rejected. Hence, in that sense, the judgment in the case of Victoria Massey (supra) had attained finality. The petitioners had also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sonia Gandhi v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) 6798/2002, wherein this Court had reiterated the decision in the case of Victoria Massey (supra) by holding that the contractual employees would be entitled to wages in the minimum of the pay-scale applicable to regular employees, but not increments. The order of this Court dated November 6, 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 3, 2016. The petitioners had also relied upon W.P.(C) 142/2016, titled as Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital v. Yogesh Kumar and Ors. in support of their case.

4. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the petitioners are being paid at par with other contractual employees of Sister Grade-II and as such there is no discrimination. That apart, they stated that the petitioners are working on contractual basis and their term had expired on July 30, 2014, but they are continuing in work due to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court.

5. The respondent had relied upon the judgment in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 321 to contend that the Supreme Court has clearly held that persons employed on contract basis cannot be equated with regular employees even in respect of pay as the recruitment rules and service conditions do not apply to them. Further their responsibility cannot be equated with those of regular employees. The Tribunal held that as the judgment in the case of Charanjit Singh (supra) was decided by three Judges of the Supreme Court as against the Tribunal and two Judges of this Court in Victoria Massey (supra), the former shall prevail.

6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is by reiterating the submissions as were advanced before the Tribunal. She has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148 to contend that the Supreme Court has applied the principle of `equal pay for equal work' even in the case of temporary employees by stating that such employees shall be entitled to minimum of regular pay scale along with allowances as revised from time to time. She submits that the Supreme Court in this case also referred to the judgment in Charanjit Singh (supra) and distinguished the same in paragraph 37 by stating that in that judgment, the Court had set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court to examine each case in order to determine whether the respondents therein were discharging similar d