Sudesh Ponnappa vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
1997 Latest Caselaw 422 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers: (I)"setting aside the letter dated 5th March, 1990 and consequently quashing the action of the respondents in putting the petitioner in the category of Garde Iii Stenographer; (ii) declare the petitioner entitled to be regularised as Private Secretary from the date of her appointment to the said post with all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay and allowances, seniority, promotion benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled had she been appointed as regular employee from that date; (iii) directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner to the post of Private Secretary with effect from 17th September, 1986 with all consequential benefits.

(2) During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has joined service with the World Bank and she is no longer interested in regularisation to the post of Private Secretary with the respondent therefore she has confined her prayer to equal pay for equal work.

(3) This prayer of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent. The respondent in the counter-affidavit has incorporated that the petitioner was initially given employment as Private Secretary on a consolidated salary of Rs. 90.00 per day which is clear from her appointment letter dated 12.9.1986 Annexure R-6. It is mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner has been given appointment purely on a casual and daily wage basis. It is also mentioned that this service will not confer any right on the candidate for regularising appointment in the M.T.N.L. It is further mentioned in the letter that the services are liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice and reasons as per the directions of the management. In the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that the petitioner was not appointed after any selection process. Her appointment was purely temporary in nature. It may be relevant to mention that after some time her consolidated salary was raised to consolidated amount of Rs. 2,400.00 .

(4) It is mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 as Stenographer Grade Ii, as she has neither undergone any selection process nor selected for the said post. It is also mentioned that even according to the rules the petitioner cannot be appointed as Stenographer Grade II. No. appointment in Grade Ii can be made directly, it has to be made only through departmental promotions.

(5) It is submitted by Mr. Sikri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, that the principle of equal pay for equal work, is not attracted in this case. The petitioner was appointed purely on casual basis without undergoing any selection process. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Judgment Today 1996 Volume 10 Page 876 in the case of State of Haryanan v. Jasmer Singh, In the aforesaid case the Court observed as under: "Daily wages employees -- Right to same pay of regular employees--Held daily rated workers cannot be treated as on par with persons in regular service of the State and they cannot be paid minimum of regular pay scales. However, regularisation is a matter of policy and is continuing."

(6) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents and the decisions of the Apex Court. The appointment letter of the petitioner indicates that her appointment was temporary in nature and she was employed as causal employee on a consolidated salary of Rs. 90.00 per day. Her contractual employment was extended from time to time and her consolidated salary was also enhanced to Rs. 2,400.00 . Now the petitioner has admittedly joined the service with the World Bank and she is not interested in regularising the services. She only wants that for the period she has worked with the respondent she be given the pay-scale which was admissible to the Stenographer working on regular basis in Grade II.

(7) The petitioner has never been appointed in Grade Ii Stenographer and as a matter of fact, according to the rules of the respondent, she could not have been appointed as Stenographer Grade Ii directly. All appointments to Grade Ii are made by promotion and not directly.

(8) In view of the settled position of law which has been crystallised by the judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. The petition being devoid of any merits is accordingly rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.