Wing. Cdr. A.K. Saxena vs Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4439 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.5321/ 1999

%                                                    26th September, 2013

WING. CDR. A.K. SAXENA                                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through:           Mr. Abhay Singh Kushwaha,
                                       Advocate   with      Ms.     Abhigya
                                       Kushwaha, Advocate.


                          Versus


PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD.                 ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. S.K. Taneja, Senior Advocate
                          with Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate.


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, the petitioner by invoking the doctrine of

'equal pay for equal work,' seeks grant of pay and allowances which are

granted to the regular pilots of respondent/Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.

2.           It is settled law that in order to invoke and apply the doctrine of

'equal pay for equal work' at least the following requirements must be

pleaded and shown to exist:-

      (i)    The parity is claimed by the petitioner with a particular
W.P.(C) No.5321/ 1999                                             Page 1 of 3
 person/post.

      (ii)     What     are   the   qualifications   of    the   person/post   with

whom/which parity is claimed and that the petitioner's qualifications are

identical or more or less same.

      (iii)    The type and nature of work as also the quantity and time of

work of the petitioner is similar to the person with whom parity is claimed.

      (iv)     Hierarchy of promotions is similar with the person/post with

whom/which parity is claimed.

3.             In the present case, petitioner is only a contractual employee.

Ordinarily therefore there cannot be comparison of unequals i.e a contractual

employee cannot claim equality with a regular employee. Even if I assume

this can be done, however, even a single ingredient required for invoking

and seeking benefits of doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not stated in

the writ petition because what are the qualifications of the petitioner for

being equivalent to the regular pilots is not stated, what is the nature and

type of work which the petitioner is doing as equivalent to the regular pilots

is not stated and how the entire work and job of the petitioner is identical or

nearly similar to the regular pilots is also not stated.

4.             In view of the above, since there does not exist any of the

requirements for the petitioner to claim benefits of doctrine of 'equal pay for

W.P.(C) No.5321/ 1999                                                 Page 2 of 3
 equal work', this writ petition does not lie, and the same is accordingly

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 26, 2013                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne