Delhi High Court: In a case wherein the petitioners claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’) was to seek the same pay and benefits as were being paid to regular staff nurses working in the respondent, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’), the Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ., opined that as there was complete similitude in the work done by the petitioners and other staff nurses working on regular basis, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to wages in the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees of the respondent, working as staff nurses with Dearness Allowance.
Background
The petitioners were appointed as staff nurses on a contract basis by the respondent, initially on a monthly salary of Rs. 11,750 which was later increased to Rs. 28,000. The petitioners submitted that the staff nurses of the respondent, who were working on a regular basis, received a total salary of Rs. 56,800. The respondent submitted that the petitioners were paid at par with other contractual employees of Sister Grade-II and as such there was no discrimination and the petitioners were working on contractual basis and their term had expired on 30-07-2014, but they continued working, due to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court. The respondent further submitted that it being an autonomous body, their employees could not be equated to government servants.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether the petitioners were entitled to the same pay that was being paid to regular employees of the respondent?”.
The Court noted that the petitioners’ case before the Tribunal was that they had not been paid salary at the minimum of pay scale as was being given to the regular employees. The Court observed that there was no dispute raised by the respondent regarding the nature of duties being performed by the petitioners, and therefore the duties being performed by the petitioners were at par with that of regular employees.
The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, wherein the Supreme Court had laid down, “An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action, besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive, and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”
The Court observed that the petitioners were seeking parity with staff nurses of the respondent, who performed similar duties and had similar responsibilities. Thus, the Court held that the petitioners could not be denied adequate compensation as was being received by regular staff nurses of the respondent. The Court opined that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was clearly applicable in the present case. The Court relied on Sonia Gandhi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4419 and opined that as there was complete similitude in the work done by the petitioners and other staff nurses working on regular basis, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to wages in the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees working in the respondents as staff nurses with Dearness Allowance.
The Court opined that “nurses working in hospitals provide a very valuable humanitarian service; their duties were manifold, from assisting doctors in carrying out treatment to taking personal care of patients and even sometimes handling bystanders and relatives of the patients. They attend to the needs of the sick and the ailing in the extremely tense atmosphere of hospitals. It would be a travesty of justice if such people are denied adequate compensation for their services as they were entitled to”. The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay the salary in the minimum of the pay scale of the post along with Dearness Allowance to the petitioners with effect from 19-09-2013, that was, from the date of filing of the application, but without interest.
[Sita Mundu v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6216, Judgement dated 05-10-2023]
*Judgement authored by – Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Ms. Kamlakshi Singh and Ms. Divya Chawla, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Tanveer Oberoi, Advocate
