Contractual staff performing identical work as regulars entitled to minimum pay scale (Basic Pay + DA); other allowances stayed pending Supreme Court decision on equal pay principle.

ORDER 

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

By virtue of the present O.A., the applicants, who are working as Nursing Staff on contractual basis with the respondent No.3, i.e. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital since 2015, are seeking pay and other allowances equal to permanent Nursing Staff from the date of their appointment along with the arrears with interest, placing reliance on the Order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2570/2014 in Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. dated 23.02.2017 being similarly situated. The relevant abstract of the aforesaid Order reads as under:-

“5.2 However, if some provision of the contract is found to be unconscionable or attracts the frown of section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, the same cannot be legally sustained. In the instant case, the contractual monthly remuneration of Rs.17,140/- (consolidated) can only be said to be unconscionable, rather immoral. In this view of the matter and also keeping in view the identity in quality and quantity of work being performed by the applicants and regular Staff Nurses, we are of the view that the respondents can be directed to revise the same and pay to the applicants the salary, allowances and other perquisites as admissible to regular Staff Nurses on their initial appointment. And, we hereby so direct. The arrears due to the applicants w.e.f. the date of filing of this OA shall be calculated and paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.”

2. The said matter was taken in appeal by the respondents/Union of India before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 12632/2018 which came to be decided on 15.07.2019, wherein the Hon’ble High Court passed an order with detailed findings, the relevant extract of the same reads as under:

“7. We see no reason to take a different view than the earlier view taken by this court and coordinate Division Bench of this court. We may also add that the SLP filed against the decision in the case of Victoria Massey (supra), was dismissed.

8. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition as well as the pending applications are dismissed.”

3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as this Tribunal, the respondents approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 46635/2019, wherein the following order has been passed vide proceedings dated 31.01.2020:

“Delay condoned.

Issue notice returnable in four weeks.

We have been informed that the contractual staff nurses have been paid minimum of the scale which roughly amounts to Rs.50,000/- (Basic + D.A.). The dispute pertains to the other allowances.

Stay of the operation of the other allowances in the meanwhile.”

The aforesaid SLP is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present O.A. is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra) and, accordingly, the applicants are seeking similar relief. The only point of difference is that in the SLP pending consideration, the contractual appointment was made in the year 2009 whereas the applicants herein were appointed on contractual basis in the year 2015.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the following case laws:

(i) State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148;

(ii) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Order dated 22.05.2009 in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs Victoria Massey in WP(C) No. 8764/2008;

(iii) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Order d