Shri Gyan Deo Mani Tripathi & Ors. vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2180 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No.3264/2001

%                                                      13th February, 2015

SHRI GYAN DEO MANI TRIPATHI & ORS.                            ..... Petitioners
                 Through: None

                            versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.                                  ..... 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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioners, who were the employees of the respondent no.1, and

were appointed temporarily for a particular project, pray that they should be

paid various benefits as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay

Commission. Appointments of all the petitioners admittedly stands

terminated w.e.f 31.3.1998 and the petitioners claim the monetary

emoluments for the periods for which they worked with the respondent no.1.

2. Petitioners were appointed as per their appointment letters giving

specific monetary emoluments, and which admittedly have been paid to the

petitioners. The petitioners therefore in terms of the letters of appointment

cannot claim anything more and whatever was due in terms of their

appointment letters fixing the pay scales, and which stand already paid to the

petitioners.

3. So far as the claim of the petitioners for grant of benefits of the 5 th

Central Pay Commission in terms of a circular dated 13.7.1998 is concerned,

the said circular does not apply to the appointments on temporary basis for

specific projects/programmes, and hence the petitioners do not fall in the

category of ad hoc employees envisaged under the circular dated 13.7.1998.

An appointment on ad hoc basis which is talked of in the circular dated

13.7.1998 does not pertain to an employee who has been appointed only on

temporary basis for a specific project. This aspect has specifically been

stated by the respondent no.1 in its counter-affidavit in para 9, and which

stand is accepted by this Court as correct.

4. Dismissed.

FEBRUARY 13, 2015                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
KA