Amar Ram AND OTHERS V. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax AND ANOTHER

WPSS/199/2018

AI Insights

The case involves contractual employees (petitioners) seeking equal pay for equal work as regular employees of the Income Tax Department in Uttarakhand. They filed a writ petition claiming entitlement to a regular pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a grade pay of Rs. 1800 per month. The respondents countered that the petitioners were not direct employees but were contracted through agencies, thus not entitled to the same pay scale. The court did not grant the writ of mandamus as sought but allowed the petitioners to approach respondent No. 2 with their claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747338 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HARI MOHAN BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT KHANNA
• Keywords: Equal pay for equal work; Mandamus; Contractual employees; Outsourced employees
• Section: 1800; 5200-20200

Judgement Text

"WPSS No. 199 of 2018 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners, admittedly, are the contractual employees, working with the respondents. By virtue of the writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for the payment of the regular pay scale, i.e. Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/- per month under the principal of law of equal pay for equal work as being paid to the regular employees. Consequently, the relief which has been sought by the petitioners in the writ petition, have been modulated in the following manner “I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for minimum of the regular pay scale i.e. 5200-20200 Grade pay 1800 per month, which is being paid to the regular employees of the Income Tax Department in the State of Uttarakhand on the principal of Equal Pay for Equal Work. II) Issue any other writ order or direction in the case, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case. III) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.” This writ petition was entertained and the counter affidavit was called for by an order dated 6th February 2018 of this Court. In response to the pleading raised in the writ petition, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit, a specific case has been taken by the respondents that the petitioners are not their employees nor they have been appointed in very manner by the department and initially, they have been appointed through an agency called as M/s Garrison Securities registered at Saharanpur, U.P. He further submits that there is no relationship of master and servants between the petitioners and the respondents, because no salary has been directly remitted to them from the funds of the department. Thirdly, he submits that the name of the petitioners do not find place in the roll of the employees as maintained by the respondents department. Lastly, he has submitted that according to the documents which has been placed by the petitioners, it shows that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis through an agency called as Triple-A Management. Hence, in a nutshell, the respondents want to submit that petitioners are outsourced employees and no liability vests upon the department to make any payment to them directly by them. Consequently, a writ of mandamus and relief as sought against the department cannot be granted by this Court. On the contrary, the petitioners claim that they have got direct nexus of relationship of master and servants with the respondents and for the relief claimed, they have already filed a representation, annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, before the respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that for the claim of the petitioners, as raised in the representation annexure-2 to the writ petition, it could be decided by respondent No. 2, where the petitioners are presently working. The petitioners are given liberty to file an appropriate representation before the respondent No. 2 regarding the controversy, in question, who is directed to take a decision on the same, as to what is the status of the petitioners whether they are contractual employees of the department. If the representation is preferred by the petitioners before the respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same would be considered by respondent No. 2 within a period of one month thereafter and pass a reasoned order on the same. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 21.02.2019 Shiv "