The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees, allowing them to claim wages at par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists on contract basis in Urban Health Centre. They had been selected by Civil Surgeon, Hisar. They are seeking directions to the respondents to grant them minimum of the regular pay scale along with other allowances from the date of their initial appointment and to pay arrears @ 18% per annum.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists on different dates on contract basis in Urban Health Centre by the Civil Surgeon, Hisar. The appointment letters of some of the petitioners are attached as Annexure P-2 (Colly.). Copy of the certificates issued by Haryana State Pharmacy Council regarding the registration of the petitioners as Pharmacist are annexed as Annexure P-1 (Colly). The grievance of the petitioners is that in the appointment letter, it had been specifically mentioned that they will be paid consolidated honorarium @ Rs. 12,000/- per month. But later on the same had been reduced to Rs.9400/- per month vide letter dated 26.8.2010. Though, later on, the salary of the petitioners had been increased. For e.g. petitioner no.1 i.e Pankaj had been granted consolidated honorarium of Rs.15911/- per month as per the extension of contract dated 01.04.2017. Petitioners have prayed that they be paid arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum for the reduced amount. Further grievance of the petitioners is that they were engaged/appointed by Civil Surgeon on the basis of advertisement of the year 2009 and 2013 (Annexure P-5 Colly.) However, later on petitioners Pankaj, Sunil, Rajbir Singh had been placed under National Health Rural Mission. The petitioners have prayed that they be treated as the employees of Director General Health Services. Another grievance of the petitioners is that they have been paid salary of Rs.15911/- per month whereas the regular selected Pharmacists are getting net pay of Rs.34647/- and gross pay of Rs. 39,930/-. The petitioners have prayed that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2016) 4 SCT 641 , they be granted minimum of the regular pay scales along with other allowances.

3. On notice of the petition, reply has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that the employees appointed on contractual basis on consolidated salary are not entitled to claim salary and allowances available to the regular employees. They cannot claim parity with the regular employees on the ground of equal pay for equal work. First of all, their qualifications are not similar. Secondly, the type and nature of their work and also the quantity and time of work is not similar. Moreover, the hierarchy of promotions with whom parity is claimed is not similar. By referring to the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of ' State Bank of India vs. M.R Ganesh Babu, (2002) 2 SCT 749 and ' Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 a stand has been taken that the petitioners are contractual employees and they cannot claim parity with permanent employees. The petitioners was appointed under the National Health Mission in which Government of India was having a share of 75% in the financial years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 and a share of 60% in the year 2015-2016. In this view of the matter, it has been further submitted therein that as for the smooth functioning of all the activities under National Health Mission, the budget has to be sanctioned by the Central Government thus for adjudicating the present controversy, the Government of India has to be impleaded as a necessary party. But, in this case Government of India has not been impleaded a party. Thus, the present petition deserves dismissal

4. Heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records of the case. In a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagj