AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicants state that they are working for quite a long time as Anganwadi workers in the Women and Child Welfare Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). In the year 2011, they were appointed as Supervisors Grade II on contractual basis for a period of six months or till the regular selection is made, whichever is earlier. The respondents issued an advertisement in the year 2014, proposing to fill the vacancies on regular basis. The applicants filed this OA claiming threefold reliefs, namely:
(a) To set aside the selection process initiated by the respondents;
(b) To direct them to formulate a Scheme for regularization of their services; and
(c) To direct the respondents to extend them the same pay scale as is applicable to the regular staff.
The applicants contend that it was only on being satisfied that they fulfil the requisite qualifications, that they have been appointed as Supervisor Grade II, though on contractual basis and, in that view of the matter, they are entitled to be regularized in that post. It is also stated that the steps initiated by the respondents for appointment of fresh candidates are untenable. The applicants have also prayed for the same pay scale as is admissible to regular employees.
The respondents filed detailed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the OA is not maintainable as the engagement of the applicants was only on contractual basis that too till the regular appointments are made. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1.
We heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, for the applicants and Shri Atul Kumar, for the respondents.
The GNCTD has made appointments, on contractual basis in many departments, obviously to meet the exigencies of services at the relevant point of time. These included the posts of Medical Officers, Lecturers in Polytechnics, Vaccinators and the like. In all such cases, the employees who were appointed on contractual basis, approached this Tribunal whenever steps were initiated for regular appointment against the posts. The uniform approach of this Tribunal has been to desist from interfering in the selection process and to reject the prayer of regularization. In every such case, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) and relevant facts were noted. In the recent past, the Tribunal expressed the same view in the case of Mrs. Babita Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and ors., OA 441/2013.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also brought to notice the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 4706/2014, Sunil Devi and ors. Vs. Govt. of NCTD and ors. The applicants therein, who were also appointed as Supervisor Grade II on contractual basis, and sought the same relief, as in this OA. This Tribunal disposed of the same by directing that whenever steps are taken for regular appointment to the post of Supervisor, it shall be open to the applicants to seek relaxation of age limits and the respondents shall, in turn, take necessary steps in accordance with law. We take the same view in this OA also.
So far as the claim for payment of equal salary at par with regular employees is concerned, we do not accept to the same at present. The applicants who are working on contractual basis, claim parity with those who are working on regular basis, stating that they are entitled to the same pay as applicable to regular employees. It needs to be examined by the respondents in view of various orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We, therefore, dispose of the OA declining to interfere with the selection process and the prayer for regularization but directing that :
(a) As and when steps are taken for regular appointment to the post of Supervisor Grade II, it shall be open to the applicants to seek relaxation of age limit, if otherwise permissible in law and they shall not be replaced by another set of contractual employees; and
(b) The respondents shall consider the request of the applicants for payment of enhanced emoluments, in case a representation is made in that behalf.
There shall be no order as to costs.