Discrimination against contractual employees violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution when equal treatment is not provided in the application of benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner [Dharam Pal], a Junior Basic Teacher [now Shastri] has come up before this Court seeking following relief(s):-

“(i). That the respondents be directed to provide the pay scale of 4550-7220 to the applicant w.e.f. February, 1998 or from the date same became due to the applicant.

(ii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the penal interest @ 9% to the present applicant on the appears which are due to be paid to the present applicant w.e.f. February, 1998 or from the date same became due to the applicant.

(iii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the salary for the vacation period to the applicant from the date of his joining the

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Precisely the case is that the petitioner served as JBT on contract basis from November 1999 till July 2002, before his appointment as Shastri Teacher on 15.07.2002 where he is continuing as such. Claim of the petitioner is two-fold i.e. firstly, that petitioner may be granted pay as JBT during his contractual period from November 1999 till July 2002 at minimum/initial of pay at Rs.4,550/- plus allowances in pay scale of Rs.4500-7220, in terms of the judgement in CWP(T) No.6037 of 2008 [OA 2154 of 1999], titled as H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. and another and COPC No.456/2014 upheld in LPA No.108 of 2012; but the respondents have not given the pay at initial of scale and admissible arrears to petitioner till day, whereas this benefit has been extended to other contract teachers; and secondly, the petitioner may be held entitled for vacation salary during the period of his contractual service as JBT between November1999 to July 2002, in terms of the mandate of this Court in CWP No.415/2000, titled as Baldev Singh & others versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.09.2008, but this benefit has not been released to petitioner till day, whereas, this benefit has been extended to other similarly placed incumbents/ teachers and therefore, the denial of benefits to petitioner was discriminating and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India, also.

STATEMENT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER QUA RELIEF NO.(I):

3. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as relief No.(i) is concerned, regarding the grant of pay at initial/minimum of pay scale of Rs.4550-7220/- at Rs.4550 + allowances, during the period of contractual service rendered as JBT [w.e.f. November 1999 till July 2002] the instant matter is covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. and another [CWP(T) No.6037 of 2008 [OA 2154 of 1999]upheld in LPA No.108 of 2012 and the order in Jasmeet Singh’s case [Execution Petition No.423 of 2023, dated 12.08.2024] and in Execution Petition No.423 of 2023, titled as Jasmeet Singh & another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others along with connected matters, decided on 12.08.2024, reads as under:-

“2. Petitioners were appointed teachers/lecturers on contract basis in pursuance to the Contract Policy formulated and circulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication No.PA-10/96- cont.96-97 (DEO) dated 08.10.1996. In the said Policy, wages to contract appointees was provided as under:-

“2. Keeping in view the judgments of various High Courts/Supreme Court the Govt. have decided that all appointments of teaching staff in the schools against short term/leave vacancies shall be on contractual basis and it has been decided to pay full wages at the minimum of the scale including allowances to the teachers appointed on contractual basis.”

3. In the year 1998, before revision of pay scale, minimum pay scale of JBT, TGT, PGT/Lecturer were 1200/-, 1640/- and 1800/-