Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6887
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Liaqat Ali, Muzaffar Hussain – Appellant
Versus
UT of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No. 1367/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.D. Qazi
For the Respondents: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DAG
Temporary employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work, and withdrawal of benefits without due process violates principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Salary recovery - Applicants sought quashing of order reducing their salary and withdrawing service benefits, claiming equal pay for equal work based on Supreme Court precedents - Applicants appointed on stop-gap basis since 2001, entitled to regularization under law after 10 years of service. (Paras 1, 19, 20)
(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Supreme Court principles apply to temporary employees; denial of benefits constitutes discrimination and exploitation, especially when applicants have served continuously for over two decades. (Paras 15, 18)
(C) Natural Justice - Respondents failed to provide show cause notice before withdrawing benefits, rendering the order illegal. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
Applicants, appointed in 1999 and 2000, challenged orders reducing their status and salary, claiming entitlement to regularization and equal pay.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, and respondents were directed to restore salary and consider regularization under relevant laws.
Issues: The legality of salary reduction and withdrawal of service benefits; the applicability of equal pay for equal work principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to all employees, including temporary and stop-gap employees, and highlighted the need for adherence to natural justice principles.
Result: Original Application allowed, with directions to restore salary and consider regularization.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of applicants' employment status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding recovery of salary and service benefits. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis on the entitlement and rights of applicants. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. decision to quash recovery and direct regularization. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion and order for implementation. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) “Quashing impugned Order No.DFC & CAG/Legal- 1909/2023/30-303 dated 15-09-2023.
b) Directing the respondents to release the salary attached to the post on the basis of equal pay for equal work in light of the judgment passed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "State of Punjab & Ors V/s Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5176.
c) Directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the account having rendered more than 10 years of services without any interruption and without any order from the Hon'ble Court.
d) Directing the respondents to release the unpaid salary of the applicants withheld by the respondents illegally and arbitrary from last more than 11 months.
e) Prayer for the grant of any other interim or final relief as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.”
2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the applicants reveals that applicants came to be appointed in the year 1999 & 2000 and their appointment among other was later on confirmed by the Administrative Department, Food & Supplies Department I&K vide Govt. Order No.09-FS of 2001 dated 06-02-2001. However, the appointments subsequently were cancelled by the General Administrative Department, J&K vide Govt. Order No.513-GAD of 2001 dated 14-05-2001 which is not in dispute. The applicants called in question the order passed by the General Administration Department but challenged that unsuccessfully however, the Hon'ble Court observed while dismissing the writ petition of the applicants, the appointment of the applicant will be treated on stop gap arrangement and they will be allowed to continue in service on stop gap basis till such time, the persons are appointed by the official respondent in accordance with law and on the strength of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court the applicants right from the date of appointment and right from the date of dismissal of the writ petition are continuing against the post held by them on stop gap basis which is not in dispute and the same stands admitted by the respondents in the communication which are under challenge before this Hon'ble Court. However, the respondents while implementing the orders formulated a Class within a class, the respondent No.5 was given the benefit of SRO-193 dated 24-04-2018 the said benefit was never extended in favour of the applicants which became the bone of contention. The applicants filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.4324/2019 titled "Daljit Singh & Ors. V/s UT of J&K & Ors. seeking identical benefits that have been granted in favour of private respondent No.5. The case filed by the private respondent No.5 challenging order dated 14-05-2001 was dismissed for non- prosecution.
3. However, it is submitted that the private respondent was granted benefit of SRO-193 dated 24-04-2018. However, that writ petition filed by the private respondent bearing SWP No. 1131/2001 titled “Khursheed Ahmed V/s State & Ors" was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 04-03-2008. However, it is pertinent to mention herein that the applicants and private respondent are working as Stop gap employees in terms of Govt. Order No 59- CAPD dated 21-04-2006.
4. That in any case the writ petition filed by the applicants/private respondent
