The court held that denying equal salary benefits to contract employees based on recruitment mode is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Both these petitions have been heard and are being decided together as common question of facts and law are involved.

2. Petitioners were appointed as Special Educators on contract basis in ‘Sarav Shiksha Abhiyan’ (for short ‘SSA’) on the fixed monthly emoluments of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Petitioner (Sheetal Sharma) in CWPOA No. 885 of 2019, was appointed on 02.06.2005 and petitioner (Manjula Sharma) in CWPOA No. 5854 of 2019, was appointed on 06.09.2006. For convenience, the petitioners hereafter shall be referred to by their respective names, wherever required.

3. Respondent No. 1, took a policy decision vide notification dated 09.05.2006 to pay salary to the contract employees on a uniform pattern. The Executive Committee of SSA adopted the said notification and thereafter started paying to all its contract employees salary on the initial of the pay scale + dearness allowance @ 50 %.

4. Petitioners were not granted the benefit of above-said notification. Petitioner (Sheetal Sharma), approached this Court by way of CWP No. 11861/2011 seeking parity with the other contract employees of SSA. Respondents in their reply filed in the said writ petition contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that only those contract employees of SSA were allowed the benefit of salary at the initial of the pay scale+50% of the dearness allowance w.e.f. 01.09.2006, who were on the sanctioned establishment of the society and whose salaries were met from management establishment of the society as per norms approved by the Project Approval Board (PAB) of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MoHRD). It was also submitted that the petitioner in the said petition was appointed as Special Educator temporarily on contract basis and her salary was claimed against specific intervention scheme i.e. under inclusive education component of SSA and for such reason she was not entitled for the benefit of Notification 9.5.2006. It was further submitted that the honorarium of Special Educator had already been enhanced @ Rs. 7,500/- per month w.e.f. 23.02.2011 as per approval granted by the Executive Committee of SSA.

5. This Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2012, disposed of CWP No. 11861 of 2011 in following terms: -

“4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2006 with interest @ 7% per annum, within a period of ten weeks from today, failing which, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ of 12% per annum till the payment is realized. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.”

6. Petitioner Manjula Sharma also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2630 of 2013 and the same was disposed of on 27.05.2014, by a Division Bench of this Court in following terms: -

“Mr. Praveen Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment dated 19th December, 2012, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 11861 of 2011, titled as Sheetal Sharma versus State of H.P. & others.

2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-State to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, strictly in view of the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.”

7. In compliance to aforesaid judgments initially the respondents granted the benefit, to the petitioner Sheetal Sharma, by paying salary at the initial of the pay scale +50% of the dearness allowance. The arrears were also paid w.e.f. 01.09.2006, however, later the respondents initiated action to revoke its earlier decision and to that effect a notice dated 07.09.2013, was received by the petitioner Sheetal Sharma. The said petitioner again challenged the notice by fil