Sr. No. Date Orders » IN THE HIGH CX>URT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % WA 242/2004 & CM 2663-64/2004 MCD Appellant TluoughMr. MukulRohtagi,Addl. SolicitorGeneralwith Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate versus ,AIAY KUMAR & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. KHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL ORDER 06.04.2004 Respondents Respondentswerefirstappointedas teacherson contractbasisfor three months on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.5,000/-. Their term was thereafterextendedfrom time to time. They filed a civil writ petitionNo.2683/2002 seeking regulaiizationof their services and for grant of equal pay-scaleas was availableto regularly appointed teachers. Writ court declined their fiist prayer of regularization of service. But it granted theii" second prayer only partly by directing appellant to pay them wages in the minimum scale of the grade payable to regularly appointedteachers duringthe term of theiremploymentby relyingupon a Supreme Courtjudgmentin Viiav Kumar & Others Vs State of Punjab & Othei^ reportedas 1995 Suppl.[4]. Appellant MCD has filed this appeal to question this diiection. LearnedAddl. SolicitorGeneralMr. Rohtagi contendedthat writcourthad wrongly grantedthemequalpay scaleon theprincipleof equalpay for equal wotk which was aoplicable onl.v if thejs^ would have been aooointed through a prescribed selection 3HR1 SHYAll^ SALES 02-03 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 Si". Ho. Date Orders process. He cited a Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs R. Yadav & Another reported as 1996 (3) SCC 332 to support this. It must be pointed out at the very outset that the Supreme Court judgment supra does not lay down any such proposition. Apart from this, it is seen that writ court had only granted to these respondents wages in the minimum scale of the grade payable to regularly appointed teachers during the term of their employment and not the equal pay scale of a regularly appointed teacher which makes all the difference in this case and which we are not inclined to disturb in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. APRIL 06,2004 ak MITKUL MUDGAL, J SHYARfl SALES 02-03