AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
Present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“a)Call for the entire records of the case, including the file notings on the applicant's representations dated 15.01.2026 and 07.08.2026, the sanction and the sanctioned strength in respect of the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) at the Ghaziabad campus of the National Institute of Unani Medicine, and the rule, order, sanction or approval of Respondent No. 1 under which the monthly remuneration for the said post was fixed at Rs. 30,000/-;
b)Quash and set aside condition 8 of the Office Order, dated 03.07.2026 bearing F. No. 1-3/2024-25/Estt/GZB issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-1), and the corresponding stipulation in every earlier order of extension;
c)Declare that the fixation and continuance of the applicant's monthly remuneration as Junior Engineer (Electrical) at a flat consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/-, without dearness allowance, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and direct the respondents to fix and pay his monthly remuneration at the minimum of Level-6 (Rs. 35,400 1,12,400) of the Pay Matrix of the 7th Central Pay Commission, together with dearness allowance as admissible from time to time, and to release the arrears accruing on that basis;
d)Direct the respondents to treat the engagement of the applicant as continuous and uninterrupted, and to desist from interposing a break between one period of engagement and the next;
e)Direct the respondents not to discontinue, displace or replace the applicant as Junior Engineer (Electrical) by engaging any other contractual, ad hoc or outsourced person, and to permit him to continue until a regularly selected incumbent joins the post;
f)In the alternative to prayer (c) above, direct the respondents, and in particular Respondent No. 1, to consider and decide the applicant's representations dated 15.01.2026 and 07.08.2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, within such time as this Hon'ble Tribunal may fix, having regard to the Level of pay prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the institutions functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH;
g)Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially appointed as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) with the respondents. However, w.e.f. April 2025, he was appointed as a Junior Engineer (JE) on a contractual basis at a consolidated salary of ₹30,000/- per month. The applicant had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.03.2025, was duly selected through a proper selection process, and was offered the appointment vide letter dated 24.03.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking the aforementioned relief on the principle of "equal pay for equal work." He contends that there are several judgments rendered by coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, as well as by the Hon’ble High Courts and the Apex Court, upholding the application of equal pay for equal work to contractual employees. The applicant submitted a representation dated 15.01.2026, followed by a reminder representation dated 07.08.2026; however, the respondents have failed to respond to either representation to date.
In support of his averments, learned counsel for applicant refers to the judgments of this Tribunal in OA No. 2930/2026 decided on 07.08.2026 as well as OA No. 2939/2026 (Annexure A-17, colly). He submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered by the judgments/order as mentioned above.
Issue notice. Mr. T.N. Tripathi, learned counsel, who appears for respondents on advance service, accepts notice. He seeks and is allowed four weeks' time to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant under instructions submits that the applicant will be fairly satisfied if liberty is given to the applicant to submit a fresh representation before the respondents citing the DOPT instructions and the appropriate judgments by various Courts, in favour of the applicant and direction be given to the respondents to dispose of the such representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner.
A query was put to learned counsel for respondents whether the respondents will have any issue if such direction be given by this Tribunal to the respondents?
Learned counsel for respondents submits that they have no objection if the aforesaid direction be issued to the respondents.
In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, and in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, the present OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself with liberty to the applicant to file fresh comprehensive representation to the respondents within a period of 10 working days from today and on receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to decide such representations of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Till then the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant.
We make it emphatically clear that we have not examined or expressed any opinion in respect of merits of the case.
The OA is disposed of in the above manner. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.