ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in these writ petitions have been engaged by the Delhi Vidyut Board (for short 'DVB') on contract basis for a period of six months in a year. It is their case that there is a perennial need for the services of persons such as them. It ie further their case that their services have been engaged after they were successful in the Test and Interview duly conducted by the Delhi Vidyut Board. Since the DV8 has taken the plea that regular appointments can be made only through the recommendations of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (for short 'DSSSB") they are all willing to again appear in the fresh selection process as and when carried out by this body. It is emphasised on behalf of the Petitioners that they are "receiving a consolidated salary of Rs.5500.00 and because of the meagreness of this amount when compared with salaries payable to regular employees, the DVB has found it convenient to meet its staff requirement through this 'cheap labour'. Indubitably, there cannot to be two opinions that the State is expected to be the paragon of a model employer and the upholder of the Directive Principles including the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The State is also to manifestly eschew unfair labour practices. The conduct of the DVB in these petitions belies these expectations.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Respondent DVB have relied on the Orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench passed on 7/1/2000 in LPA 6/2000 entitled Neeraj Kumar v._Delhi Vidyut Board. The Learned Single Judge had declined protection/extension of their services after the efflux of their contractual engagements. Counsel for the DVB had stated before the Division Bench that the DVB shall not appoint any person as Electrical Inspectors on contractual basis and it was because of this statement that the Appeal was dismissed. But subsequent experience has shown that the DVB has not adhered to this statement and persons including the Petitioners have been engaged, year after year, on contract basis. On the first hearing of C.W. 6341/2000 'Rule' had been issued by Hon'ble Madan B. Lokur, J. and notice on the stay application had been ordered returnable for 29/11/2000, but in the interregnum the services of some of the Petitioners in this batch of petitions were dispensed with "in compliance with the undertaking given by the Respondents on 7/01/2000 before a Division Bench in LPA 6 of 2000." Learned counsel for the Respondent have stated during the course of the arguments that in the event that the DVB again requires staff as Electrical Inspectors it will engage the services of the Petitioners on a contractual basis once again.

(3.) On behalf of Petitioners it has been contended by Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that at present it is only interim protection that is prayed for. She does not press or urge that the prayer for regular absorption of the Petitioners should be ordered. From the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others. 2001 3 SCC 574 reliance has been placed on following passages:-