W.P. (C) Nos. 3512/2014 & 3834/2014. Case: Abhinav Chaudhary Vs Delhi Technological University. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) Nos. 3512/2014 & 3834/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rashmi Chopra, Advocate and For Respondents: Latika Chaudhary, Advocate |
| Judges | Valmiki J. Mehta, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | January 20, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
W.P.(C) No. 3512/2014
1. Five petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the action of the respondent no.1/employer/Delhi Technological University of refusing to extend the contractual appointments of the petitioners and issuing a fresh advertisement for fresh appointment for contractual period for the posts in question. Petitioners are working at the posts of Assistant Professors with the respondent no.1 since the year 2011 in terms of contractual appointment letters one of which is at page 66 of the writ petition paper book. Other petitioners have similar letters of appointment. Petitioners are working in the pay band of Rs.15,600-39,000 i.e. Rs.15,600 + annual grade pay of Rs.6,000 + Dearness Allowance (DA) as applicable. Petitioners are not entitled to and do not claim any other monetary emoluments except the aforesaid pay band + DA as provided in the contractual appointment letters. Petitioners also do not claim regularization and they also do not claim any equality with any other permanent employee of the respondent no.1.
2. The only grievance of the petitioners is that a contractual appointee cannot be replaced by any other contractual appointee. Petitioners claim that no doubt petitioners cannot seek regularization, however, it is argued that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee on more or less the same terms. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. Vs. Piara Singh and Ors. etc. etc. (1992) 4 SCC 118 which holds that one work charged/casual employee/daily worker cannot be replaced by any worker of same category. It is argued that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh and Ors. (supra) has been approved by the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. The judgment in the case of Piara Singh and Ors. (supra) is referred to in paras 23 to 25 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra). In para 26, the Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi (supra) only disagreed with that direction of Piara Singh and Ors.'s case (supra) which requires regularization of ad hoc or temporary or casual employee. In para 25 of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) para 46 of the Piara Singh and Ors.'s case...
To continue reading
Request your trial