ANURAG GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had sought implementation of the revised pay scale pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as against the date of 16.09.09 indicated in the office memorandum dated 22.09.2009. Since that was not given into the petitioner, he filed an original application being OA No.1566/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. THE same was dismissed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.01.2012. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before us by way of this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was a contractual employee in an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) sponsored project which was implemented as an ad hoc Extramural Research Project in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He was appointed by a memorandum dated 01.11.2007 pursuant to his application dated 05.10.2007 for the job of Scientist- II in the project titled as "Development of visual Analog scale for Smile characteristics following orthodontic treatment and its correlation with the treatment outcome". THE project of the ICMR was sanctioned for a period of two years from 15.07.2006. THE initial appointment of the petitioner was for a period of three months from the date the petitioner assumed charge in the job. It was clearly stipulated that this was a contractual appointment; that no TA/any other allowance would be given for joining the duties; that he would get his consolidated pay in the pay scale of Rs.23125+HRA+NPA (Non Practicing Allowance) of initial basic pay of Rs.10,000/-; that the engagement was purely temporary and would come to an end on completion of the period of three months or on the day the project comes to an end. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual basis on an ad hoc project and for a short term. In fact, the petitioner worked in the project from November, 2007 till July, 2009 inasmuch as the initial tenure of three months was extended from time to time.

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner, as would be evident from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, sought parity with the regular employees of AIIMS and ICMR. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to take a different ground and that was that she sought parity with contractual and tenure employees in various government organizations. However, she has not been able to point out a single case of any similarly situated employees in a short term project where the benefits of revised pay scale as recommended by the 6 th Central Pay Commission have been given w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for equal treatment with the regular staff of AIIMS/ICMR on the principle of there being no wholesome identity between the job profile of the petitioner vis--vis the said regular employees. Clearly, the case of the petitioner does not stand on the same footing as that of regular employees.