SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Yash Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4737 of 2007
Decided On : 20-12-2022




The court confirmed that employees cannot claim the salary of a higher post if their substantive role remains in a lower capacity, despite performing similar duties.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Employment law - Claim for salary of Data Entry Operator position from 1998 to 2006 rejected by Tribunal, emphasizing applicant’s substantive post was Watchman, despite performing DEO functions - Court confirmed Tribunal's findings, reinforcing distinctions between temporary, ad hoc, and substantive posts. (Paras 1, 4, 19)

(B) Employment Rights - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Court held that while temporary employees may claim equal pay for similar work, the petitioner's role did not establish a direct promotion line from Watchman to DEO. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on a temporary basis, subsequently sought salary for acting as a DEO during that tenure, highlighting that he was alienated from promotional pathways due to his substantive position.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the application due to lack of proof establishing that the petitioner held the role of DEO; compensation limited to honorarium for additional duties performed.

Issues: The case primarily involved the determination of appropriate pay scale based on duties performed and the implied rights of temporary employees to claim benefits associated with prolonged duties outside their substantive position.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that substantive positions dictate salary entitlements; merely performing functions akin to permanent roles does not confer rights for the pay scale associated with those roles.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present petition is arising out of order dated 10.05.2006, passed in O.A. No. 620/2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, by which the claim of the Petitioner for grant of salary of the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO) for the period w.e.f. 09.09.1998 to 03.04.2006 has been rejected. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner before this Court was undisputedly appointed as a watchman on ad hoc basis vide order dated 08.08.1996. His appointment was purely on temporary basis in the pay scale of 750-12-870-14-940. That another order dated 08.09.1998 was issued by the Respondent directing the Petitioner to report on duty on the post of Watchman. The Petitioner thereafter was posted on 13.01.1999 under the Commissioner of Income Tax, Computer Operations.

2. The Petitioner submitted his joining pursuant to the aforesaid order and the Petitioner's contention is that he was sent for Data Entry Training by an order dated 13.01.1999. The Petitioner has further stated that applications were invited from eligible employees for the post of DEO vide circular dated 24.05.2000. The Petitioner submitted his application for the post of DEO on 07.06.2000 and his post of watchman was regularized on 12.02.2001. The Petitioner's contention is that post of Watchman was regularized, but he was working as a DEO and an honorarium was also granted to him @ Rs.1500 every year. One such order granting honorarium to the Petitioner dated 30.03.2001 is on record.

3. The Petitioner has further stated that the Respondents thereafter issued an order of promotion on 31.03.2006, promoting Group C and Group D employees to the post of Tax Assistant (earlier known as Data Entry Operator) and the Petitioner was also promoted to the post of Tax Assistant w.e.f. 03.04.2006 vide order dated 31.03.2006.

4. The Petitioner came up with the grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that he was holding the substantive post of watchman, however, the Respondents directed him to work as DEO w.e.f. 09.09.1998 till 03.04.2006 and, therefore, he should be paid the pay scale of DEO, i.e. Rs.4000-6000 instead of Rs.2550-3200.

5. A detailed and exhaustive reply was filed by the Union of India before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner. The operative paragraphs of the Order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the Original Application as contained in paragraphs 5 to 8 read, as under:

    "5. It is not disputed by respondents that applicant has been discharging functions of DEO Grade-A from 9.8.1999 although his services were regularized in the post of Watchman. Annexure A-5 dated 30.3.2001 is the recommendation of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Computer Operations), East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, recommending grant of honorarium to officials like applicant working in TAS Section of RCC who have been processing more than 1.5 lakh challans every month and more than 3 lakh challans during the months of June, September, December and March every year. It has also not been denied by the applicant that the post of DEO is not the next post in the line of promotion for the post of Watchman. Normally, respondents could not have taken from applicant the work of the post of DEO.

    6. In the case of V.C. Gupta (supra) a Senior Manager who was delegated the powers of Chief Manager was held entitled to the pay of the higher post on the principle of quantum of merit. Again in the case of Badri Prasad (supra), benefit of pay protection, age relaxation and advantage of experience for consideration for promotion was considered as a legitimate claim in respect of the appellants who had worked on the promotional post on ad hoc basis for long number of years and were subsequently reverted. In both these cases aggrieved parties had been working on the higher post but the higher post was the next post in direct line of promotion for the post hel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top