YUVNEET KUMAR Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners claim is that although they have been appointed on contract basis they are legally entitled to receive salaries in the scale of regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(2.) The preponderant view enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the persons such as the Petitioners would not perse have the right to claim salaries equal to that of regular employees. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the thought provoking decision titled Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 879. The opening paragraph deserves to be thoroughly digested for its perspicuous legal content; it also commends careful reading because of its literary excellence. In all humility the passage is reproduced: 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims; so the petitioner asserts. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principle, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women'. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and Art. 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. So the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 and has asked us to direct the respondents to give him his due, the same as they have given others like him. True, he is the merest microbe in the mighty organism of the State, a little clog in a giant wheel. But, the glory of our Constitution is that it enables him to directly approach the highest Court in the land for redress. It is a matter of no little pride and satisfaction to us that he has done so. Hitherto the equality clauses of the Constitution, as other articles of the Constitution guaranteeing fundamental and other rights, were most often invoked by the privileged classes for their protection and advancement and for a 'fair and satisfactory' distribution of the buttered loaves amongst themselves. Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations roused as a consequence, and the forward looking posture of this Court the underprivileged also are clamouring for their rights and are seeking the intervention of the Court with touching faith and confidence in the Court. The Judges of the Court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the guest of the five-star hotel. The decision, however, may not be apposite to the present case for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not concerned with emoluments payable to contractual/ temporary/ ad hoc employees. A comparative analysis of pay scales of drivers in the various Forces and Government Departments had been undertaken, and in these circumstances uniformity had been recommended.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also relied on Bhagwan Dass and Others v. State oftiaryana and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 634. In that case the Court had observed that the burden of proving similarity in nature of work is on the aggrieved temporary appointees but once the burden is discharged, the onus shifts on the Government.