Sr. No. Date SHRI SHYAMSALES 02-03 + €K, Orders IN THE HICIH COURT' UM UELMi Ai NEW. mLHl WA 407/2004 & CM 4440/2004 MCD Appellant Through Mr. Mukul Rohta^, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate versus VIJAY SINGH & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. KHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL ORDER 06.04.2004 Respondents Respondents were first appointed as teachers on contract basis for three months on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.5,000/-. Their term was thereafterextendedfrom timeto time. They filed a civil writ petitionNo.3593/2002 seeking regularizationof their sa^vices and for grant of equal pay-scale as was availableto regularlyappointedteachers. Writ court declinedtheir first prayei" of regularizationofservice. But it grantedtheii*secondprayeronly paitlyby dit^tins appellantto pay them wagesin the minimumscaleof the gradepayableto regularly appointedteachers duringthe termof theiremploymentby relyingupon aSupreme Courtjudgmentin Vijay Kumar &Others Vs Stateof Punjab &Othpr^ reportedas 1995Suppl.[4]: Appellant MCD has filed this appeal to question this direction, learnedAddl. SolicitorGeneralMr. Rohtagi contendedthat writcourthad wrongly grantedthemequalpay scaleon theprincipleofequalpay for equal woik which was apDhcableonly if they would have been appointedthrough a prescribedselection Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Sr. No. Date Orders process. He cited a Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs R.Yadav &Anotherreportedas 1996 GVSCC332tosupportthis It must be pointed out at the very outset that the Supreme Court judgmentsupra does not lay down any such proposition. Apart from this, it is seen that writcourt had only grantedto theserespondentswages in the minimumscaleof thegradepayabletoregularlyappointedteachersduringtheterm oftheiremployment and not the equal pay scale of a regularlyappointedteacher which makes all the difference in this case and which we are not inclined to disturti in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. APRIL 06,2004 ak •• MUKUL MUDGAL, J SHRI SHYAM SALES 02-03