Delhi High Court
Smt. Satya Singh And Ors. vs Family Planning Association Of ... on 17 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6118/2000
% 17th December, 2013
SMT. SATYA SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: None.
Versus
FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ANR.
...Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, petitioners claim the relief of gratuity
and provident funds from their employer/respondent no.1/Family Planning
Association of India.
2. Respondent no.1 has filed its counter-affidavit in which in
para 16 it is stated that it has framed separate service rules concerning the
employees working in the branch of the respondent no.1 as a private body
vis-a-vis those working under Government funded project. The case of the
petitioners is decided under Rule 43 of the General Rules and Service
W.P.(C) No.6118/2000 page 1 of 4
Regulations of the respondent no.1. It is further pleaded that respondent
no.1 has amended the rules keeping in view the interest of the respondent
no.1 as regards the availability of funds from various sources. Respondent
no.1 is an NGO and therefore it is pleaded that it does not follow the
government rules in totality.
3. I have had an occasion to consider this aspect of employees of
the respondent no.1 who are not employed in the government funded
project and this has been decided by me in W.P.(C) No.9063/2011 titled as
Dr. T. Renuka & Ors. Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi & Ors. decided on 27.11.2013. This judgment dated 27.11.2013
reads as under:-
"1. Petitioners are employees of respondent no.2-Family
Planning Association of India. Family Planning Association of
India has two sets of employees. One set of employees are those
employees who like the petitioners became part of the department
of respondent no.2 which was fully funded by the government for a
family planning project. Respondent no.2 is otherwise a private
NGO. The second set of employees are private employees of this
private NGO who do not form part of the department of the
respondent no.2 which is fully funded by the government for family
planning project. Petitioners claim parity with the private
employees of the respondent no.2 with respect to gratuity and other
terminal benefits, and for which purpose, reliance is placed upon
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
M.P.Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (now GNCTD) and
Ors. ,in W.P.(C) No. 3007/1989 decided on 5.8.1992.
W.P.(C) No.6118/2000 page 2 of 4
2. The principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ has its source
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India applies to the State and instrumentalities of
State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The principle of
„equal pay for equal work‟ cannot be enforced for claiming parity
by employees of the State or instrumentalities of State with the
employees who work in private commercial establishments.
Therefore, petitioners cannot claim parity with private employees.
Even in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of
M.P.Singh (supra) parity was claimed by the petitioners who were
employees of the department of respondent no.2 which was fully
funded by the government for family planning projects, with those
employees in other societies and organizations which were funded
by the government for the family planning projects. In
M.P.Singh's case (supra), there is no ratio laid down, and nor
could any ratio be laid down that the principle of „equal pay for
equal work‟ applies between government employees or employees
of a State and private employees. Therefore, I reject the argument
that petitioners can claim equal pay for equal work with those
employees who are private employees of respondent no.2.
3. So far as the claim of the petitioners for payment of
gratuity and terminal benefits similar to the benefits granted to other
employees of respondent no.2 who are in the department of
respondent no.2 which is fully funded by the government for the
family planning project is concerned, then in that case, if the
government funding and the government circulars entitle employees
such as the petitioners in the department of respondent no.2 which
is fully funded by the government to the grant of gratuity and other
terminal benefits, petitioners shall be granted gratuity and terminal
benefits in terms of the circulars and directions of the government
as applicable to the employees in the department of the respondent
no.2 which is working for the family planning projects.
4. The writ petition is therefore dismissed so far as the claim
for equal pay for equal work is concerned, however, it is allowed in
terms of the directions given above so far as the gratuity and
terminal benefits are concerned. Parties are left to bear their own
costs."
W.P.(C) No.6118/2000 page 3 of 4
4. Applying the reasoning in the case in W.P.(C) No.9063/2011,
the petitioners who appear to be employees of the private part of the
respondent no.1/organization i.e petitioners not being employees of the
government funded project, they cannot claim benefits which are granted
to employees of the respondent no.1 working in a government funded
project. There cannot be comparison of service conditions of private
employees with the government employees.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 17, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
W.P.(C) No.6118/2000 page 4 of 4
