Delhi High Court
Anurag Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 May, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 15.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2858/2012
ANURAG GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Gupta
For the Respondent No.1 :Ms. Sweety Manchanda.
For the Respondent No.2 :Mr. Vaibhav Kalra.
For the Respondent No.3 :Mr. Sheikh Faraz.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had sought implementation of the revised pay scale pursuant
to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as
against the date of 16.09.09 indicated in the office memorandum dated 22.09.2009.
Since that was not given into the petitioner, he filed an original application being
OA No.1566/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned
order dated 30.01.2012. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before us by
way of this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was a contractual employee in an Indian Council of Medical
Research (ICMR) sponsored project which was implemented as an ad hoc
Extramural Research Project in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He was
appointed by a memorandum dated 01.11.2007 pursuant to his application dated
05.10.2007 for the job of Scientist- II in the project titled as "Development of
visual Analog scale for Smile characteristics following orthodontic treatment and
its correlation with the treatment outcome". The project of the ICMR was
sanctioned for a period of two years from 15.07.2006. The initial appointment of
the petitioner was for a period of three months from the date the petitioner assumed
charge in the job. It was clearly stipulated that this was a contractual appointment;
that no TA/any other allowance would be given for joining the duties; that he
would get his consolidated pay in the pay scale of Rs.23125+HRA+NPA (Non
Practicing Allowance) of initial basic pay of Rs.10,000/-; that the engagement was
purely temporary and would come to an end on completion of the period of three
months or on the day the project comes to an end. It is, therefore, clear that the
petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual basis on an ad hoc project and for a
short term. In fact, the petitioner worked in the project from November, 2007 till
July, 2009 inasmuch as the initial tenure of three months was extended from time
to time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the OM dated
22.09.2009, granted the benefit of revised pay scales for Research Scientists
working in R & D Programmes of the Central Government Departments/Agencies,
the revised pay scales were only to be effective from 16.09.2009. She submitted
that the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission was that the revised
pay scale should become effective from 01.01.2006. Thus, according to her, there
was no reason behind the OM dated 22.09.2009 prescribing a date other than
01.01.2006. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner is that the revised pay scale
should have been operative w.e.f. 01.01.2006 even in the case of contractual
employees working on ad hoc sponsored projects.
4. At the outset, we may point out that the Central Pay Commission merely
makes recommendations to the Government and, that too, in respect of regular
employees of the Government. It does not relate to employees such as the
petitioner who were merely on a contractual basis on an ad hoc short term project.
It is for the Government to accept the recommendations and to implement the same
from the date of its choice.
5. In the present case, the petitioner, as would be evident from the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal, sought parity with the regular employees of AIIMS
and ICMR. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to take a
different ground and that was that she sought parity with contractual and tenure
employees in various government organizations. However, she has not been able
to point out a single case of any similarly situated employees in a short term project
where the benefits of revised pay scale as recommended by the 6 th Central Pay
Commission have been given w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Tribunal has rightly rejected
the claim of the petitioner for equal treatment with the regular staff of
AIIMS/ICMR on the principle of there being no wholesome identity between the
job profile of the petitioner vis-à-vis the said regular employees. Clearly, the case
of the petitioner does not stand on the same footing as that of regular employees.
6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that in any
event, the rationale of fixing the effective date as 01.01.2006 by the 6th Central Pay
Commission was based on the price index at that particular time which remained
the same whether it was for regular employees or for contractual employees of an
ad hoc sponsored project. This is a matter of policy, which only the government
can adopt. The government in its wisdom had adopted the date of 16.09.2009 for
implementing the revised pay scale insofar as ad hoc contractual employees in
sponsored projects are concerned. We do not see as to how we can interfere with
that policy decision. In any event, we have already pointed out above, the
petitioner does not stand on the same footing as the regular employees, as their case
is different. As the Tribunal has found, there is nothing unreasonable in classifying
the petitioner separately from the regular employees and thereby implementing the
revised scales from a different date.
7. In view of the foregoing, we do not see any reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
8. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
MAY 15, 2012
rb
