The principle of equal pay for equal work requires evaluation of various dimensions of a given job, including the quality of work, educational qualifications, and other relevant factors. It is not applicable in cases of daily-wage or contract employees.

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Subhodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Dikshit, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondent to pay equal pay for equal work and other benefits as other permanent employees of the Nagar Palika Paishad, Pilibhit with all consequential benefits.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that a quotation/notice dated 27th May, 2001 was issued by the nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit inviting application for engagement of typist on contract basis. Last date for submission of the application was 27th May, 2001. The petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid notice submitted his application and the Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit allowed him to join as typist on 28th May, 2001. He was paid fixed pay of Rs. 2500/- per month. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was initially for a period of two months which was extended thereafter from time to time. The petitioner submits that Adhyaksh, Nagar Palika parishad, Pilibhit sent a letter dated 3rd February, 2003 to the Commissioner for sanctioning the post of typist/computer clerk but till date no order has been passed by the competent authority sanctioning the aforesaid post. However, the petitioner is continuously working and presently getting a fixed salary of Rs. 3050/- only while the persons who are regularly appointed in Nagar palika Parishad, Pilibhit are getting salary in the prescribed pay scales and getting more than Rs. 8000/ -.

( 4 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that there is no sanctioned post of computer clerk/typist. Although letter has been sent to the Commissioner but he has not passed any order. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner is purely temporary and he cannot claim salary/wages at par with the regular appointed employees.

( 5 ) THE basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since he is discharging duties similar to those which are being discharged by other regularly appointed incumbents, the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable and he is entitled for the same salary which is payable to other regularly appointed permanent employee of Nagar Palika Parishad. The factum whether the post was sanctioned or not is irrelevant particularly when eight posts of clerks are lying vacant in Nagar Palika Parishad. He further submits that in view of the availability of the vacancies of clerk, the petitioner could be adjusted on the post of clerk and should have been paid salary accordingly.

( 6 ) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find any force. The petitioner, admittedly, has been engaged as typist on a consolidated pay for a limited period which has been extended from time to time. No doubt, Annexure 1 to the writ petition is a copy of the quotation/information issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit on 22nd May, 2001 but it is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid notice was given wide publicity and was published in the newspaper also. Even the time gap within which the entire appointment process has been completed i. e. six days shows that the appointment has not been made by advertising vacancy to the public at large inviting application from all eligible incumbents. If there is a regular and substantive vacancy in a public office, the same has to be filled in by wide publication so that all eligible persons at large may have opportunity to apply for the same since all persons have fundamental right to consideration in public services under Article 16 of the constitution of India. No such procedure has been followed in the present case. It appears that only notice on the Notice Board has been affixed by Nagar Palika Parishad and thereafter the petitioner has been appointed. The said process does not answer the requirement of wide publicity and equivalent opportunity of consi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document