Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand Arora vs Union Of India & Anr. on 30 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3835/2010
% 30th July, 2013
RAMESH CHAND ARORA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Ratta, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Deepa Rai, Adv. for R-2.
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, petitioner Sh. Ramesh Chand Arora , who had
worked as a Consultant with the respondent no.2, claims higher emoluments
during the period for which he served with the respondent no.2. Higher
emoluments are claimed on the ground that petitioner has not been paid as
per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission and which amounts are
being paid to the person who has subsequently to the petitioner been
appointed by respondent no.2 as its consultant.
2. The appointment letter of the petitioner shows that petitioner has to be
paid salary as per the rules of the Government of India. In the writ petition,
W.P.(C) 3835/2010 Page 1 of 3
no cause of action is laid out that for the post to which the petitioner was
appointed as a consultant, a particular amount of salary is paid by the
Central Government and the petitioner is not receiving that salary but lesser
salary. There is therefore no cause of action laid out of lesser salary being
paid although for such post petitioner was entitled to a specific higher salary
by the Government of India.
3. The second ground on which entitlement is claimed is that it is said
that the subsequent person who has been appointed, after the petitioner's
appointment came to an end, is receiving a higher amount. This claim is
based on 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine. However, the writ petition
does not show as to how the qualifications of the petitioner would be
identical with the new appointee, how the scope and nature of duties of the
petitioner with the subsequent employee are same and what are the other
aspects which entitle equivalence of the petitioner to the amounts which are
paid to the subsequent appointee. Also it is not wholly unknown that for an
appointment which takes place at a subsequent point of time, because of
passage of time from the first appointment, higher amounts are paid to the
subsequent appointee.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has also brought my attention
to the compilation of Swamy's Handbook which pertains to engagement of
W.P.(C) 3835/2010 Page 2 of 3
Consultants and in which, there is a difference which is carved out on the
basis of date of retirement of an employee. Whereas for persons who retired
before 31.3.2004 the amount to be paid is of Rs.6500/- for part-time work
and Rs.13,000/- for full time employees, to those government employees
who retired after 31.3.2004, the amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid for part-time
work and Rs.20,000/- is paid to full time employees. Petitioner admittedly
retired after 31.3.2004 and he was paid in accordance with the aforesaid
classification i.e Rs.13,000/- p.m.
5. Therefore, looking at it from any angle, petitioner-consultant is not
entitled to higher monetary emoluments than he actually received during the
period of his appointment. I may also state that petitioner at no point of time
during his service with the respondent no.2 ever raised any claim with
respect to higher emoluments. If a claim is not raised during the period of
employment I am doubtful it can be raised subsequently, though the writ
petition is being dismissed for other reasons as stated above.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
JULY 30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
