Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 Date of Decision: April 04, 2008 Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration ............ Petitioner versus Jaspal Kaur and others ............. Respondents Present: Shri Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 14634-CAT of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration ............ Petitioner versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another ............. Respondents Present: Shri Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Civil Writ Petition No. 15068-CAT of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration ............ Petitioner versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another ............. Respondents Present: Shri Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [2] CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10397-CAT of 2006, 14634-CAT and 15068-CAT of 2007 as common question of law is involved in these writ petitions. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10397-CAT of 2006. Chandigarh Administration has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) on 28.02.2006, Annexure P-9, whereby Dearness Allowance was ordered to be paid to the contractual employees of the Chandigarh Administration. The brief facts, out of which present writ petition arises, are that respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter to be referred as “the applicants”) have been engaged on contractual basis on a fixed pay of Rs.2200/- and Rs.2000/- respectively on 22.07.2000 on 89 days basis. They continued to work on contractual basis. In OA No. 461/CH/2001, the Tribunal passed an order on 31.05.2002 directing the petitioner Administration to consider the case of the applicants for re-adjustment against the available vacancies and for equal pay for equal work. On 02.12.2002, a direction was issued in OA No. 126/CH/2002 titled “ Krishan Kumar vs. Union Territory” filed by Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [3] similarly situated employees that the applicants therein and all school teachers similarly placed and claiming similarly reliefs shall not be replaced or substituted by the new incumbents appointed or to be appointed on contractual basis and all the existing contract-appointees shall continue to work till they are relieved by the duly selected regular teachers appointed in accordance with the rules. It was also ordered the school teachers including the applicants shall further be entitled to minimum of the pay scale as admissible to the regular teachers and no deductions shall be made for the period of artificial breaks or vacations. During the pendency of the said Original Application i.e. Krishan Kumar's case, Chandigarh Administration issued a circular on 24.07.2002 deciding to grant consolidated pay i.e., minimum of the pay scale plus Dearness Allowance as admissible to the regular employees at the time of appointment against the vacant post. In terms of the said circular, the applicants herein were granted consolidated salary of Rs.8000/- and Rs.7000/- respectively w.e.f. 24.07.2002 i.e., the date when the policy decision was taken by the Chandigarh Administration. The applicants filed Original Application No. 801-CH of 2003 claiming minimum of pay scale plus Dearness Allowance from the date they are in continuous appointment i.e. 22.07.2000 to 23.07.2002 after adjusting the amount earlier paid. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal on 08.12.2003. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “ In view of the foregoing, the OA succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the minimum of the scale of pay to the applicants from the date of their continuous appointment with the respondents w.e.f. 22.7.2000 till 23.7.2002 (ignoring the artificial breaks and vacations), after adjusting the salary already paid to them. They will also Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [4] be paid the salary for the summer vacations of the years 2001 and 2002. These directions will be complied with by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs”. The said order was challenged by the Chandigarh Administration in a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed. However, it was ordered that the applicants will be entitled to back wages of 18 months prior to the filing of the Original Application in the year 2001. In pursuance of such order passed by the Tribunal as modified by this Court, the applicants were paid the requisite amount vide order dated 19.05.2005, Annexure P-5. Thereafter, the applicants raised a claim before the Tribunal by way of Miscellaneous Application that, in fact, they are entitled to minimum of pay scale from the date of their initial appointment along with Dearness Allowance as revised from time to time and not the Dearness Allowance as applicable on the date of appointment. The said claim has been accepted by the Tribunal in the order Annexure P-9. Though the order does not specifically deal with the payment of revised Dearness Allowance from time to time but reading of the pleadings and the orders passed by the Tribunal, which are subject matter of challenge in CWP Nos 14634-CAT and 15068- CAT of 2007, makes it absolutely clear that the claim of the applicants in all the three writ petitions is for payment of Dearness Allowance as revised from time to time. The petitioners have been granted Dearness Allowance on the basis of circular of Chandigarh Administration dated 24.07.2002 where it is contemplated to pay Dearness Allowance as admissible to regular Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [5] employees at the time of appointment. The question which arises is whether a contractual employee is entitled to revision in Dearness Allowance from time to time as is being given to the regular employees. In counter affidavit dated 30.03.2008, the applicants have attached circular issued by the Chandigarh Administration on 13.03.2007 wherein the situation arising on account of payment of Dearness Allowance as applicable on the date of appointment was explained and it was decided that all future appointments shall be made on consolidated contractual amount irrespective of the amount of Dearness Allowance payable. It is not disputed that the applicants were appointed on contractual basis. As the applicants were engaged on contractual basis, in our opinion, the applicants cannot insist for the same benefits as are being paid to the regular employees. Somewhat similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 11836-CAT of 2002 titled Dr. Lok Raj and others vs. Chandigarh Administration and others, decided on March 12, 2008. This Court relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2002(1) SLR 694 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556. After considering the aforesaid judgements and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SC 1 and the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 4492 of 1997 titled State of Punjab and others vs. Devinder Singh and others, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.07.1997, it was found that non grant of increments to the petitioners, who have been appointed on consolidated salary, cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of the principles of equal pay for equal work. Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [6] In M.R. Ganesh Babu's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the claim of equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done and that it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales and other conditions of service. It was further held that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned, which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court. In Dr. Lok Raj's case (supra), the petitioners claimed increments though they were appointed on consolidated salary. The said claim was not found to be sustainable. In the present case, the claim of the applicants is grant of Dearness Allowance revised from time to time. The basis of issue is similar in both the cases. The applicants in the present case were appointed on a consolidated salary with Dearness Allowance as applicable on the date of appointment. Obviously, such circular was issued keeping in view the financial implication on the Administration. As contractual employees, the applicants cannot claim parity with the regular employees. The pay and allowances which are admissible and paid to the regular employees cannot be claimed by the contractual employees as there is marked qualitative difference in respect of their responsibility and reliability. The applicants are not holding civil post under the State but Civil Writ Petition No. 10397-CAT of 2006 [7] discharging their contractual obligations in terms of the contract. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal granting parity with the regular employees so as revision of Dearness Allowance from time to time is wholly unjustified and not tenable in law. Consequently, order dated 28.02.2006, Annexure P-9, in CWP No. 10397-CAT of 2006; order dated 10.05.2007, Annexure P-5, in CWP No. 14634-CAT of 2007 and CWP No.15068-CAT of 2007 are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE April 04, 2008 (MOHINDER PAL) ks JUDGE