Delhi High Court
Dr. T.Renuka & Ors. vs Government Of National Capital ... on 27 November, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 9063/2011
% 27th November, 2013
DR. T.RENUKA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Zeeyaul Haque, Adv.
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI &
ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.Rajeshwar Rao and Mr.
Charanjeet Singh, Advocates
with Mr. Raj Kumar, Statistical
Assistant for R-1.
Mr. Nishant Nigam, proxy
counsel for Mr. Siddharth Dias,
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. 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
WPC 9063/2011 Page 1 of 4
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.
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
WPC 9063/2011 Page 2 of 4
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.
WPC 9063/2011 Page 3 of 4
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.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
