IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7487 of 2008 Decided on : 25.03.2011 Sushil Kumar ..… Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh State Electronics Corporation …….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None, though served. For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide paras 7(i) and (ii):- “(i) That the respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to revise the daily rate / consolidated salary of the applicant from Rs. 90/- to Rs. 166/- per day which is equal to the minimum of the pay of the regular computer operators in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 w.e.f. 27.10.1997. (ii) That the respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to give minimum of the pay i.e. Rs. 5000/- in the regular pay 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 scale of Rs.5000-8100 as given to the regular Computer Operators and also allowances thereon w.e.f. 27.10.1997 on principle of equal pay for equal work forthwith.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondent, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 6(iv):- “3. The contents of this paragraph are not admitted to be correct. The applicant has been working purely on contract basis as Computer Operator since his appointment with the Corporation. It was clearly mentioned in the “Contractual Agreement” required to be executed by the applicant with the Corporation that he would be paid a monthly remuneration of Rs. 2700/- @ Rs. 90/- per day only. The applicant can not automatically claim his eligibility to the enhanced wages of Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 5800/- at par with regular Computer Operators. 6 (iv) The contents of this paragraph are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. As per clause ii of the Agreement vice Annexure R-I above, the applicant was liable to be posted anywhere in HPSEDC Computer Centrs located in Himachal Pradesh or at any of the user department premises in accordance with the terms d and conditions of his appointment and the Contract Agreement. The applicant has been paid Rs.90/- per day in accordance with his contractual appointment and agreement executed by 3 him with the Respondent. Further clause E(6) of the contractual appointment of the applicant will not create relationship of employer and employee or servant between both the parties and that the contractual assignment will not entitle him for any further regular / daily wage part time / contract based employment. Once the applicant had accepted the employment as Computer Operator on Contract basis, as per the appointment letter and the Agreement executed by him, to work @ Rs.90/- per day or Rs. 2700/- fixed, then the applicant can not claim parity on minimum of scale as given to regular Computer Operators on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Besides the above, the financial status of the Replying Corporation is also not health, so as to afford the payment of revised daily rate or revised fixed salary wages or the minimum of the revised scale of regular computer operators to the applicant w.e.f. 1-1-96. However, the claim of the applicant is mis- conceived.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he shall be free to make a representation along with copy of this judgment to the respondent within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in 4 accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would allow the decision on the representation. 4. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 25th March, 2011. Lsp*