VINAY KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a diploma holder Engineer has moved this Court by way of present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds inter - alia that the respondent University being a statutory body and hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and falls within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a daily wager @ Rs. 40/ - per day with regard to the construction and completion of a particular project undertaken by the University for construction of Gymnasium building w.e.f. 22.1.90. Thereafter the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties assigned to him in respect of that project and the said project has not been completed though it should have been completed by November, 1996. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that he is entitled to be fixed in the regular pay scale as admissible to regularly appointed diploma holder Engineers which is prevalent in other departments of the Government like P.W.D. P.H.E.D. Irrigation etc. The petitioner has claimed equivalence in the matter of admissibility of pay scale as is being drawn by similarly placed Engineers as of today in the University. The petitioner has further contended that even as per law laid down by apex court in the matter of Bhagwan Dass and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : [1987]3SCR714 , scale as is being given to the similarly placed diploma holder Engineers working in various departments of the State as referred to above, on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which have been violated by the respondent - university.

(3.) KEEPING in view the aforesaid observation of the apex court, prima -facie, I am of the view that no vested right can be claimed by the petitioner for continuity in employment beyond the period which is actually spent on completion of the aforesaid project. I am further of the view that respondent shall explore the possibility of engaging the petitioner in any other project which may be available with the respondents in which the petitioner may be employed. However, it will not be obligatory for the respondents to do so.