Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Association of Indian Universities - Respondent
LPA 298 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Discrimination under Articles 14, 16, and 21 was not established as appellants were classified as temporary consultants, distinct from regular employees entitled to revised pay scales.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Employment benefits - The appellants challenged the non-grant of revised pay scales for consultants based on discrimination principles, asserting their claim under equality provisions. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Employment Law - Re-employment conditions - Court observed that since the appellants were on temporary and contractual basis, they could not equate their claims with regular employees' remuneration. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants contended against a judgment denying them equal pay as consultants, claiming their treatment violated constitutional equality. They argued their contract was similar to that of regular employees who received revised pay but faced a contradictory court ruling.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's decision was upheld, stating a clear distinction between the appellants as contractual consultants and regular employees.
Issues: The key issues were whether the appellants were unfairly treated compared to other employees and the appropriateness of their remuneration claims as contractual consultants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellants, as temporary consultants, were not entitled to the same remuneration as permanent employees, thereby affirming the validity of the lower court's decision.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayers in the appeal include setting aside the impugned order. (Para 3) |
| 2. contention on lack of pension and comparability with others. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. claim of discrimination under constitutional articles. (Para 6) |
| 4. dispute over application of pay scale revision. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. clarity on contractual basis of employment and remuneration. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. no error found; appeal dismissed. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 21532/2022 (Exemption)
1. The application is allowed, with a direction to the applicant to file requisite certified copies, original copies, true typed copies and margins of dim annexures within four weeks.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
LPA 298/2022
3. This appeal has been filed seeking the following prayers:
"i. Set-aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 so passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(c) No. 11563 of 2021. ii. Direct the respondents to grant and release the difference of pay or remuneration to the appellants on the post of consultants, consequent to revision of pay for the period of their re-employment between 2016-2019 with 18% of interest p.a."
4. The present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellants are not the pension holders and as such are not receiving pension of the service put in by them in the Association of Indian Universities (hereinafter referred to as `AIU') as there is no pension scheme in the respondents' Department and as such no Pension Payment Order has been issued to the appellants and the superannuation benefits have been paid to the appellants.
5. Learned Single Judge has further failed to appreciate the fact that the claim of the appellants is not contrary, as similarly situated employees of the respondents, who were also re-employed on various posts namely, Mr.Sampson David, retired as Joint Secretary and another Shri Sambhav Srivastav, retired as Under Secretary, who were also retired after attaining the age of superannuation and re-employed on the post of Consultant as the appellants.
6. The aforesaid employees were paid as per the revised pay scale of 7th Central Pay Commission for re-employment period and not paying the same to the appellants, is clearly discriminatory against the appellants under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India which has been stated by the appellants in the representation made to the respondents.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the report of the respondents about the adoption of 7th Central Pay Commission in AIU vide its report dated 26.10.2017. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondents had taken a decision by the Governing Council dated 18.12.2015 that the Committee is of the view that re-appointment of AIU staff needs to be made on contractual basis and in such cases, there emoluments be fixed as per scale in which the employee retired. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the emoluments of Mr. Prabir Guha be fixed as per the scale in which he retired.
8. The case of the respondents is that the appellants were given the benefit of the revision of pay scales as regular employees of respondent No. 1 organisation, which includes the arrears w.e.f. January 1, 1996. On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the learned Single Judge did not agree with the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that though remuneration as Consultants given to the appellants on the Basic Pay+Grade Pay+Dearness Allowance drawn on the date of retirement but the fact remains that the appellants after retirement are receiving the pension for the service put in by them in AIU.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no pension scheme. However, it is wrongly recorded by the learned Single Judge. We do not dispute the said fact. How
