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
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
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.
Supreme Court ruling clarified eligibility for pay scales based on recruitment rules, affecting ongoing claims by a group of employees, necessitating representation for re-evaluation.
The court emphasized the necessity of re-evaluating the applicant's pay scale claims, distinct from previous orders, ensuring due process as warranted by the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to minimum wages as per the equal pay principle, asserting their right to equitable treatment.
The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable if the work component is the same, and workers doing the same work cannot be paid less than others similarly situated.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees, and the State Government is obliged to extend the same pay scales to temporary employees on par with regular employees.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.