HARISH Vs. LT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby OA 4182/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioners were appointed as part-time vocational teachers in terms of a Scheme of the Government introduced in the year 1977-78, purely on contingent basis. The terms and conditions of their appointment indicated that the appointment could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason/notice. It was further stipulated that the appointment would not entitle them to any regular job under the Directorate of Education. The remuneration payable to them was fixed at Rs.80/- per hour for theory classes and Rs.50/- per hour for subjective classes, subject to maximum of Rs.2,000/- per month. The remuneration payable to the petitioners was later increased by Rs.3,500/- (consolidated) revised per month, subject to their teaching minimum 12 periods per week to qualify for the maximum limit of the remuneration/honorarium. It was also stipulated in the order that the honorarium/remuneration shall be calculated on the basis of actual teaching periods. In the event of the number of periods being less than the prescribed limit, the remuneration was to be reduced proportionately. While revising the remuneration, it was reiterated that the appointment was purely on contingent basis and could be terminated without assigning any notice. It was also clearly stated that the appointment would not entitle the petitioners to any regular job under the Directorate of Education. The remuneration was further revised to Rs.5,000/- per month (consolidated), subject to the conditions that they would teach a minimum of 16 periods per week or 64 periods per month, to qualify for the enhanced maximum limit for remuneration. The remuneration was to be calculated on the basis of actual teaching periods and in case the number of periods was less than the maximum prescribed limit, the remuneration was to be proportionately reduced. By the order dated 06.08.2008, the remuneration was increased to Rs.8,200/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2008.

(2.) OA No. 1748/2010 was filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that they were regular employees of the Government and entitled to half of the salary of regular teachers. They also sought the pay applicable to PGTs on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", from the date they were asked to impart studies for 32 periods in a week. The OA was disposed of vide order dated 26.5.2010, by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass a speaking order. The representation was rejected by the respondents by a speaking order dated 9.9.2010, which was challenged by them in OA No. 4182/2010. The said OA having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this writ petition. The Tribunal while dismissing the OA filed by the petitioners observed that the issue involved in the matter stood concluded by its decision in OA No. 1748/2010 Vocational Part-Time Teachers' Association And Others v. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi And Others. In OA No. 1748/2010 the Tribunal had given a direction to the respondents to fill up Vocational Part-Time Teachers as per the methodology laid down under the Rules of 2000 and consider the applicants after relaxing the age requirement. They were also directed to given weightage for the applicants having been engaged as teachers for a significant period of time. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the applicants before this Court in WP(C) No. 2299/2010. Upholding the decision of the Tribunal this Court held that since the petitioners were never subjected to a recruitment process, they must compete in the open market and they cannot enter in the regular cadre through the backdoor. This Court noted that the equitable benefit to which the petitioners were entitled had already been given to them in the form of age relaxation. The Tribunal therefore rejected their case on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". With respect to the prayer of the petitioners to pay to them 50% of salary and allowances received by regular teachers, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioners were not placed similar to the regular employees and therefore no such direction could be issued.

(3.) During the course of arguments before us the learned Counsel for the petitioners pressed the writ petition only in relation to the prayer for payment of pay and allowances to the extent of 50% of the pay and allowances being paid to regular teachers.