1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 6173 of 2008 RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA V/S CENTRAL ADMN. TRIB.,JODHPUR & ORS. Mr. SK MALIK, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 27.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner. The petitioner as given contractual appointments vide order dated 1.2.2001 as Project Investigator on a fixed remuneration under time bound research project sponsored by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India. He worked in the project from 6.2.2001 to 31.3.2003, and 14.4.2003 to 26.4.2003. It is contended that he came to learn that Field Investigators employed at Ahmedabad Centre in Gujarat State were being paid a higher salary, whereupon he submitted representation, which has been rejected on the ground that consolidated salary applicable in ad-hoc projects of ICMR are not applicable to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department on prevention and control of health hazards among salt workers of desert area of Gujarat and Western Rajasthan. The claim was resisted on the ground 2 that he was appointed in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised on contract basis at a consolidated salary. It was pleaded that he was appointed as Project Investigator, and the designation was wrongly shown as Field Investigator in the experience certificate. The learned Tribunal found that so far factual aspect is concerned, the applicant's designation is Project Investigator as is evident from the advertisement as well as appointment letters, and also in the experience certificate issued to the applicant No.1, and mentioning of his designation as Field Investigator on some subsequent communication has been contended to be by mistake. Then the two letters of ICMR dated 11.8.2000 and 5.7.2002, which were pressed into service with all vehemence were considered, which revealed that there is no regular post of Project Investigator and the so called Field Investigator mentioned therein is also in single scale of pay. It was found that the Project Investigator is for a particular contract for which two scales have been provided. It was also found that admittedly the project in which the petitioner was employed was sponsored by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which have not issued any order in respect of revision of pay of Project Investigators, apart from the fact that Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has not been impleaded as party. It was also considered that the order relating to consolidated pay for various posts under ad-hoc Extra-Mural 3 Projects have been issued by ICMR but the applicant was employed on different project. It was also found that no details have been shown that Field Investigators employed in a similar project in Gujarat are being paid higher pay scale. Thus, it was found that there was no violation of Article 14, and thus, O.A. was dismissed. In our view, it is no less significant to note that the two letters dated 11.8.2000 and 5.7.2002 encloses list of various posts, but therein the post of Project Investigator is not there, and simply because the petitioner has been able to get him described in subsequent communications after his appointment came to an end as Field Investigator, he cannot be allowed to lay claim prescribed in the aforesaid two letters for the post of Field Investigator. We otherwise also at one with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. It is established law clearly laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported in JT 2008(1) SC 231 and Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in JT 2006(4) SC 420, and catena of other cases including that in State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Tilak Raj & Ors. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 3382, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textiles Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. NTC (WBAB & O) Ltd. Employees Union & Ors. reported in JT 2003 (Suppl.2) SC 534, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Hiranmoy Sen & Ors. reported in JT 2007 (12) SC 503 and Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs. 4 Kagajkal Thikadar Sramik Union & Ors. reported in JT 2008 (1) SC 156 etc. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal requiring interference in our writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/