Denial of revised pay to contractual employees continued on court orders but performing identical duties held violative of Article 14, lacking intelligible differentia with nexus to uniform remuneration revision objective.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

Tag CWPs No. 19455, 19497 of 2025 & CWPS No. 1257, 1258, 1267 and 1857 of 2026 with CWP No. 19494 of 2026.

2. As common issues of facts and law are involved in these petitions, they are being decided by way of a common judgment. For the purpose of dictating the judgment, the Court shall be referring to the relief clause as well as documents appended with CWP No. 19484 of 2025.

3. In CWP No. 19484, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), since the same is discriminatory in nature, in view of the fact that all the employees are getting the revised monthly pay in terms of the revision carried by the respondent authorities, but qua the petitioners, said revised monthly pay has been withdrawn on the ground that their petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to grant the revised monthly pay to the petitioners qua their respective streams in view the revision of monthly pay carried by the respondent authorities on 24.07.2025.
iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities not to effect recoveries from the petitioners, since the said payment has been made by the respondent authorities in accordance with law to the petitioners in terms of the revision of monthly salary of the contractual employees carried by the respondent authorities on 24.07.2025. (iii) That the similar relief as was given by this Hon'ble Court to similarly situated petitioner as per annexure P-4 to P-6 may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
iv) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.”

4. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

5. The controversy involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. The petitioners herein were appointed under ECHS Programme and are serving against various posts, as stand mentioned in the writ petition. As there was a threat of their disengagement on account of a fresh advertisements being issued by the ECHS to fill up the posts against which the petitioners were working, they approached the Court and are still continuing to serve the department on contract basis on the strength of Court orders.

6. In the meanwhile, in terms of Annexure P-5, communication dated 28.11.2025, there was revision of remuneration of contractual employees of ECHS Polyclinics, however, the revision was denied to the contractual employees like the petitioners who were continuing on the strength of Court orders with the observation that they will be paid unrevised rate of salary.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the denial of revised remuneration to the petitioners, who are continuing on the strength of Court orders, is totally unjustified. He submitted that it is not as if an employee who is serving on contract basis on the basis of Court orders is not performing the same duties as are being performed by the other contractual employees. Learned Counsel further submitted that the wages are paid to contractual employees for work being extracted from them by the employer and because the petitioner