ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is a diploma holder Engineer has moved this Court by way of present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds inter - alia that the respondent University being a statutory body and hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and falls within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as defined under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a daily wager @ Rs. 40/ - per day with regard to the construction and completion of a particular project undertaken by the University for construction of Gymnasium building w.e.f. 22.1.90. Thereafter the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties assigned to him in respect of that project and the said project has not been completed though it should have been completed by November, 1996. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that he is entitled to be fixed in the regular pay scale as admissible to regularly appointed diploma holder Engineers which is prevalent in other departments of the Government like P.W.D. P.H.E.D. Irrigation etc. The petitioner has claimed equivalence in the matter of admissibility of pay scale as is being drawn by similarly placed Engineers as of today in the University. The petitioner has further contended that even as per law laid down by apex court in the matter of Bhagwan Dass and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : [1987]3SCR714 , scale as is being given to the similarly placed diploma holder Engineers working in various departments of the State as referred to above, on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which have been violated by the respondent - university. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties. Although the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager @ 40/ - per day with effect from 22.1.1990 in my view, the services of the petitioner should have been regularised by the University in the same pay scale as admissible to the similarly placed diploma holder Engineers. Prima -facie I am of the view that where the nature of the duties are identical the employer is under obligation to give benefit of same emoluments to the two sets of employees even though falling in different categories with regard to the nature of their employment, keeping in view the aspect of similarity in the nature of duties and qualification performed and possessed by the two sets of employees. I am further of the opinion that irrespective of the source from which the petitioner was appointed whether after regular selection or not, once he has been appointed on a particular project, he cannot claim benefit of continuity of service after the completion of the said project since it is always open to the appointing authority to consider his case for further extension in service or not which is at the discretion of the respondent -university. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has rendered about 6 years of continuous service on the post of Junior Engineer on the project assigned to him by the respondent -university the respondents are under obligation to take the benefit of services of the petitioner with regard to that project only i.e., the completion of Gimnasium Building in the respondent -university. My observations are fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh v. Nohar Ram, C.A. No. 1539/96, decided on 3.1.1996 reported in 1996(1) U.J. (SC) 226 wherein the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether it is obligatory on the employer to continue the services of an employee notwithstanding the completion of the Scheme in which he was engaged and whether the said employee can claim regularisation or continuation of his service. The apex court while expressing its dissent with the observations of the High Court held that the High court was not right in giving direction to regularise the services of the said employees in other places, since no vested right is created in temporary employments and directions cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies, nor direction can be given to the State to create new post in a non -existent establishment.
(3.) KEEPING in view the aforesaid observation of the apex court, prima -facie, I am of the view that no vested right can be claimed by the petitioner for continuity in employment beyond the period which is actually spent on completion of the aforesaid project. I am further of the view that respondent shall explore the possibility of engaging the petitioner in any other project which may be available with the respondents in which the petitioner may be employed. However, it will not be obligatory for the respondents to do so.;