Participation in the recruitment process on a contractual basis does not confer the right to be regularized, but the principle of equal pay for equal work justifies the grant of minimum pay scale extended to regular employees.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION (IA No. 6964 OF 2022)

Issue notice on the Delay Condonation Application.

2. Mr. Mohd. Azmeen, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. The respondents fairly do not oppose the application to seek condonation of delay of 295 days in filing the present Special Appeal.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay caused in filing the present Special Appeal is, hereby, condoned.

SPECIAL APPEAL No. 173 OF 2020

5. The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions, including Writ Petition (S/S) No. 331 of 2019 titled “Navneet Raturi and others v. Union of India and others”. The appellant – Jogendra Singh was petitioner no. 4 in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

6. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and grant age relaxation to those petitioners, who were otherwise eligible on the date of their induction on contractual appointment, and they shall be granted age relaxation for the period they have worked with the respondent-Institute. It was made clear that no interference was made with the ongoing recruitment process. The writ petitioners were at liberty to apply against the posts advertised, for which the appointment process had already commenced. In case they were to apply against the said posts, on which they were earlier discharging their duties, the respondents would consider their candidature as per the Rules, and they would not be rejected on account of being overage.

7. The appellant also assails the order passed in the Review Application preferred by him. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Review application vide order dated 04.08.2020.

8. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as a Wireman, on contractual basis, by the respondent no. 2-Institute. The respondents had advertised several posts, which were to be filled up on contractual basis “for a period of 11 months or till regular appointments are made”, whichever is earlier. Amongst the posts, for which the advertisement was issued, was the post of Wireman. The recruitment process was undertaken by issuing the notice dated 03.12.2014, and the process of recruitment was through a walk-in-interview. The advertisement itself stipulated that, for the post of Wireman, a consolidated salary of Rs. 14,000/- was payable. The appellant participated in the walk-in-interview, and was appointed on a contractual basis, vide communication dated 11.02.2015, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 14,000/-. The services of the appellant were continued till 31.12.2018, whereafter, his contractual appointment was not continued any further. Instead, it appears that the respondent no. 2-Institute sought to invite applications to fill up the post of, inter alia, Wireman on regular basis. At that stage, the appellant and other writ petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition has been disposed of, with the directions taken note of hereinabove.

9. The appellant had sought, firstly, the relief of regularization on the post of Wireman on the ground that the appellant had been discharging efficient services on the said post, since his appointment on 11.02.2015. The appellant also sought a direction to the respondents to pay minimum pay scale to the appellant, as granted to the sanctioned/ regular posts of Plumber and Wireman respectively, on which post he had been discharging his services efficiently since January/February, 2015, on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148.

10. Both the aforesaid reliefs have been rejected by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment.

11. The submission of the le