Ms.C.M.Chopra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.D.S.Vohra, Advocate v. UNION OF- INDIA & ORS .....

2. FIe was ernployed in the Public Works Departrnent of the Central Government as a skilled beldar on October 16, 1974 as a daily wagcr. On August 13, 1976 he was employed as a daily wager as a Graduate Supervisor. IIe commenced litigation somewhere in the year 1983 praying therein that notwithstanding he being ernployed firstly as a skilled beldar on daily wage and later on as a graduate supervisor on daily wage since he was perfonning duties which were to be perfonned as a Research AssistanVfechnical Associate and then as a Senior Research Assistant, he prayed that on the principle of equal pay for equal work he should be paid salary firstly as that of a Research Assistant frorn October 16, 1974 and that payable to a Senior Research Assistant with effect from August 13, 1976. IIe also prayed for his service to be regularized.

3. W.P.(C) No.1006/1983 was dismissed on March 22, 1984 observing that the Courl could not direct creation of a post. The Courl noted that a post of Laboratory Assistant was offered to the petitioner which he declined to accept. Thus, it was observed that petitioner's grievance of being kept with a muster roll status was not justified i.e. it was a case of selfdcnial of an opportunity.

4. Deciding Civil Appeal No.1077511984 the Supreme Court took on record statement made on behalf of CPWD that after creating a post the petitioner would be appointed as a Laboratory Assistant.

5. In the ycar 1987 petitioner filed OA No.1480/1987 clairning sarne or similar reliefs as were prayed for in CW No.l006/1983 which were declined to hirn when the Original Application was disrnissed on March 17,

1993. {: w.P.(C) Nos.4383/2013 & 4384/2013 Page 2 of[6] f 6., W" are eschewing reference to other litigations because they are irrelevant for our purposes.

7. After a post of Laboratory Assistant was sanctioned the petitioner was appointed against said post on regular basis on November 01,

2000. One would have expected him to be happy with a permanent job and it appears he was, till sornebody misled him in the year 2010 to make a representation firstly on January 01, 2010 which was repeated on October 3I, 2010 dernanding salary with increments from October 16, 1974 as payable to a Research Assistant and thereafter with effect from August 13, 1976 as payablc to a Senior Research Assistant, the two dates being when the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager skilled beldar and a daily wager superuisor respectively.

8. The Department did not respond to his belated representations rcsulted in the petitioncr filing OA No.4l30l20l[2] which was disposed of by the Tribunal on the vcry first day of hearing without notice to the respondents directing that representation made by the petitioner and especially the last one made on February 13, 2012 should be disposed of expeditiously.

9. Ilut for reasons best known to thc petitioner when OA No.4130/2012 was pending in the Registry and we say so forthe reason we find that said Original Application was listed before the Tribunal Bench only on January 30, 2013, he filed another Original Application which was registered as OA No.39l2013 praying similar relief which has been disrnissed by thc Tribunal vide ordeidated January 21,2013 observing that the clairn was barred by lirnitation.

10. We note that the Tribunal has not noted the past litigation to W.P.(C) Nos.4383/2013 & 438412013 Page 3 of[6] which we have briefly made a reference hereinbefore.

11. Vide W.P.(C) No.4384/2013 order passed by the Tribunal on January 21,2013 dismissing OA No.39l2013 has been challenged. Vide W.P.(C) No.438312013 order dated January 30,2013 has been challenged.

12. As regards challenge to the order dated January 30,2013, the petitioner can have no grievance because nothing adverse against hirn has been held. But, we need to speak about the order dated January 30,2013. Wc have repeatedly cautioned the 'fribunal not to dispose of 13. Original Applications without notice to the respondents and pass seemingly innocuous orders as of the kind dated January 30, 2013. The reason is, as in the instant case, stale clairns are sought to be resuscitated by making belated representations and directions issued ex parte to the Department to decide such representations, upon the same being rejected, create problerns of cause of action accruing. If only the Tribunal would have called for a response in OA No.4l30l20l[2] the I)epartrnent would have informed that after having filed OA No.41 30/2012 in the Registry somewhere in the month of December, 2012 without getting the same listed before the Bench the petitioner had filed OA No.3912013 in the first week of January,2013 which Original Application was listed before the Bench and as an after notice matter was heard and decided vide order dated January 21, 2013. 'fhus, the Tribunal, if only it had the patience to seek a response, would have been guided to dispose of OA No.4I30l20l[2] as infructuous.

14. As regards the order dated January 21,2013 we agree with the view taken by the 'fribunal that the clairn was barred by limitation. Suffice would it be to state that the petitioner was seeking a monetary relief going back to October 16.1974. W.P.(C) Nos.4383/2013 & 438412013 Page 4 of[6]

15. The clairn was even otherwise baned by res judicata. Same claim was made twice earlier firstly under W.P.(C) No.1006/1983 which was declined secondly when OA No.148011987 was filed and the relief was declined.

16. Undisputedly petitioner was appointed as a daily wage skilled beldar on October 16, L974 and his claim that he actually worked as a Itesearch Assistant required hirn to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work within three years of October 16, 1974. Similar would be the position with respect to his claim pertaining to salary payable to a Senior Research Assistant with effect from August 13,1976. It has to be kept in mind that a post of Laboratory Assistant was created for the petitioner and he was appointed on regular basis to said post on November 01, 2000. He was paid salary in the pay scale t3200-4900. F{e never raised the issue of notional appointment frorn a back date in the interregnllrl, as noted above, he fought many litigations but was unsuccessful at each stage except an assurance made in the Suprerne Court that a regular post would be sanctioned to which petitioner would be appointed. o Contention urged by Ms.C.M.Chopra senior counsel that the 17. { principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable in the instant case overlooks that pertaining to daily rated employees such view taken by different benches by applying parity with regular appointed employees was held to be contrary to law in the decision reported as (2006) 4 SCC I Secretarvt State qf Karnataka Vs. (Jma Devi. Besides, dnY monetary clairn preceding three years from the date when a claim is made in a Court or a judicial Fora has to be held as barred by limitation.