GIRDHARI SINGH NEGI Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed in September 1999 the Petitioner has prayed for the regularisation of his services as an Office Attendant and for the payment of equal pay for equal work. Admittedly, he was appointed in this capacity on 22.12.1997 for a period of six months against a newly created post. He was posted at Sandhya (Home for Senior Citizens), Netaji Nagar, New Delhi, with the prior approval of the Secretary, N.D.M.C./Member-Secretary, New Delhi Palika Parishad, Samaj Kalyan Samiti by Office Order dated 2.7.1998, at a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.1677/-. On 2.7.1998 this appointment was extended for "a further period of six months with effect from 24.6.1998 on the existing terms and conditions. These facts are not in controversy. This will be evident from a reading of the following extracts of the Counter, which contain the defence of the Respondents in the present petition:

(2.) Ms. Alpana Poddar, learned counsel for the Respondent, has strongly urged that the Petitioner has not been dealt with unfairly or has been discriminated against. It is her submission that there should be a prior sanction for an additional vacancy in the post, and that it should be filled up only through the Employment Exchange and after the vacancy is advertised. These factors should have been borne in mind by the Respondent at the initial stage, and certainly at every extension of the Petitioner's services. It cannot weigh at this belated stage when the Petitioner has put in almost four years of service. It also does not legally suffice that the Petitioner will only be replaced by a permanent employee. The annals of the Petitioner's service make it abundantly clear that deliberate breaks in service, of one or two days was effected by the Respondents.

(3.) It ie now an integral part of our jurisprudence that the Government is expected to exemplify the model employer. Legislation is directed not necessarily with governmental agencies in mind since they ought to automatically implement the prevailing legal ethos. In particular, the mandate of Article 39 of the Constitution, for the equal pay for equal work, must be adhered to. It can be expected that welfare and labour protectionist laws may be received with reluctance by private employers, who have to be forced into compliance therewith. Therefore it is indeed alarming when Authorities adopt unfair labour practice, as is the example of the Respondents in the present case. In Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 43, the Apex Court had viewed the intentional break in service and the policy of adhocism to be in breach of Articles 14 and 16. Another Bench of three Learned Judges in Karnataka State Private Collage Stop-Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and others, (1992) 2 SCC 29, without reference to any previous decisions ruled that the State Government's policy of appointing ad hoc Teachers for several years, with one day break, paying salaries which were ten rupees less than the minimum payable to regular Teachers was violative of Article 14. It issued directions for continuing the services of such Teachers, for their regularisation and for payment of salaries on part with the regular Teachers, by implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Minaral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361, it was observed that once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they are allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective post on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification. A coordinate Bench of three Learned Judges had shared the same opinion in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 as under: