JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION (IA No. 6964 OF 2022) Issue notice on the Delay Condonation Application. 2. Mr. Mohd. Azmeen, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The respondents fairly do not oppose the application to seek condonation of delay of 295 days in filing the present Special Appeal. 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay caused in filing the present Special Appeal is, hereby, condoned. SPECIAL APPEAL No. 173 OF 2020 5. The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions, including Writ Petition (S/S) No. 331 of 2019 titled “Navneet Raturi and others v. Union of India and others”. The appellant – Jogendra Singh was petitioner no. 4 in the aforesaid Writ Petition. 6. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and grant age relaxation to those petitioners, who were otherwise eligible on the date of their induction on contractual appointment, and they shall be granted age relaxation for the period they have worked with the respondent-Institute. It was made clear that no interference was made with the ongoing recruitment process. The writ petitioners were at liberty to apply against the posts advertised, for which the appointment process had already commenced. In case they were to apply against the said posts, on which they were earlier discharging their duties, the respondents would consider their candidature as per the Rules, and they would not be rejected on account of being overage. 7. The appellant also assails the order passed in the Review Application preferred by him. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Review application vide order dated 04.08.2020. 8. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as a Wireman, on contractual basis, by the respondent no. 2-Institute. The respondents had advertised several posts, which were to be filled up on contractual basis “for a period of 11 months or till regular appointments are made”, whichever is earlier. Amongst the posts, for which the advertisement was issued, was the post of Wireman. The recruitment process was undertaken by issuing the notice dated 03.12.2014, and the process of recruitment was through a walk-in-interview. Amongst the posts, for which the advertisement was issued, was the post of Wireman. The recruitment process was undertaken by issuing the notice dated 03.12.2014, and the process of recruitment was through a walk-in-interview. The advertisement itself stipulated that, for the post of Wireman, a consolidated salary of Rs. 14,000/- was payable. The appellant participated in the walk-in-interview, and was appointed on a contractual basis, vide communication dated 11.02.2015, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 14,000/-. The services of the appellant were continued till 31.12.2018, whereafter, his contractual appointment was not continued any further. Instead, it appears that the respondent no. 2-Institute sought to invite applications to fill up the post of, inter alia, Wireman on regular basis. At that stage, the appellant and other writ petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition has been disposed of, with the directions taken note of hereinabove. 9. The appellant had sought, firstly, the relief of regularization on the post of Wireman on the ground that the appellant had been discharging efficient services on the said post, since his appointment on 11.02.2015. The appellant also sought a direction to the respondents to pay minimum pay scale to the appellant, as granted to the sanctioned/ regular posts of Plumber and Wireman respectively, on which post he had been discharging his services efficiently since January/February, 2015, on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . 10. Both the aforesaid reliefs have been rejected by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, so far as relief of regularization is concerned, is that the eligibility qualifications and experience requirement stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondents on 03.12.2014 to fill up the post of, inter alia, Wireman, was identical to the eligibility qualifications and experience requirement, as stipulated for a regular appointee. He submits that the recruitment of the appellant was through an open process, by inviting applications from the public. Therefore, there was complete transparency in the matter of employment of the appellant, and the appellant also had the requisite essential qualifications and professional knowledge. He submits that the recruitment of the appellant was through an open process, by inviting applications from the public. Therefore, there was complete transparency in the matter of employment of the appellant, and the appellant also had the requisite essential qualifications and professional knowledge. The essential qualifications and professional knowledge for the post of Wireman, as stated in the advertisement, was as follows :- 8 Wireman Rs.14,000/- Essential Qualifications: Academic Qualification: Should have passed ITI Diploma or equivalent qualification in the trade. Professional Knowledge: Electrical workman permit / workman’s competency certificate electrical workman’s/lineman license (Certificate of competency Class- II) or any other equivalent certificate with atleast 5 years experience in Trade test as applicable. 05 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the nature of work of the appellant was perennial, inasmuch, as, the respondent-Institute requires a Wireman on a regular basis. This is also evident from the fact that the respondents have subsequently sought to advertise the regular posts of Wireman. He submits that, even though the appellant was appointed on contractual basis for a period of 11 months, or till regular appointments are made, the appellant is entitled for regularization by the respondents. In this regard, he has also placed reliance on a file noting made by the AS(AS) on 28.08.2018 in a file of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which recorded the points which emerged from the discussion held on 28.08.2018 by the Department Related Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. Learned counsel emphasizes on Point No. ii, as recorded in the aforesaid note, which reads as follows :- “ii. It should be earnestly examined what preference can be extended to contractual staff in regular recruitment and also whether they can be regularised.” 13. Learned counsel has also sought to place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Daya Lal and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 , and, in particular, on the following observations :- “12. Learned counsel has also sought to place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Daya Lal and others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 , and, in particular, on the following observations :- “12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society [ (2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [ (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [ (2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [ (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943].]” 14. We have perused the impugned judgment; heard the learned counsels; and considered the decisions relied upon by him. 15. So far as the relief of regularization sought by the appellant is concerned, we do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, and we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment on that aspect. The appellant participated in the recruitment process undertaken through a walk-in-interview, for the post of Wireman advertised as on purely contractual basis for a period of 11 months, or till regular appointments are made. The contractual period of the appellant was about 04 years, since he was appointed on 11.02.2015, and continued till 31.12.2014. The appellant claims that he served till 16.02.2019. Be that as it may, the tenure of the appellant was around 04 years. 16. The appellant cannot now turn around and claim that he should be regularized, since he participated in the walk-in-interview, knowing fully well that his appointment was being made on contractual basis for a period of 11 months, or till regular appointments are made, whichever is earlier. His contract of employment may have been extended for a further period. However, it did not extend beyond 04 years. His contract of employment may have been extended for a further period. However, it did not extend beyond 04 years. The appellant did not get vested with any legal right to enforce/ thrust regularization against/ upon the respondent-Institute. 17. The submission that the appellant had all the requisite essential qualifications and professional knowledge, which are prescribed for regular employment, does not mean that he could be considered as having been appointed against a regular vacancy, on a regular basis. Scores of others, who would have been interested in offering their candidature against a regular post, for regular appointment, may not have participated in the walk-in-interview conducted by the respondent-Institute, as only contractual employment was offered for a period of 11 months or till regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier. It would be highly discriminatory against all other eligible candidates, to consider the case of the appellant for regularization in these circumstances. 18. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the State of Rajasthan (supra) is also misplaced. The Supreme Court set out the well settled principles relating to regularization in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment, by referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 , and a few other judgments. 19. These principles do not support the appellant’s claim. The Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) had frowned upon the backdoor entries and casual appointments, which were then continued for decades together. All such appointments were held to be illegal, and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, however, with a view to save the employment of thousands of such casual appointees, as a one-time measure, directed that those, who were in service for more than 10 years and fulfilled the eligibility criteria, could be considered for regularization by framing of a scheme by the State. 20. The appellant is harping upon the fact that the appellant has the requisite qualifications. However, that by itself is not sufficient even to invoke the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra). Assuming for the sake of argument that the said principle could be invoked by the appellant in respect of his employment - which took place only in 2015 on a contractual basis, it is not the appellant’s case that he was continued on contractual basis for decades together. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said principle could be invoked by the appellant in respect of his employment - which took place only in 2015 on a contractual basis, it is not the appellant’s case that he was continued on contractual basis for decades together. Therefore, merely because he may have been qualified to be regularly appointed against the post of Wireman, is no ground to grant his prayer for being considered for regularization. 21. Reliance placed on the aforesaid noting made by the AS(AS) on 28.08.2018 is neither here, nor there. An office note does not tantamount to an order. In any event, the said note merely states that it should be earnestly examined what preference can be extended to contractual staff in regular recruitment, and whether they can be regularized. The same cannot be read as a mandate to the respondent-Institute to regularize a contractual employee. The appellant has already been granted the relief of age relaxation, and he has been permitted to participate in the regular recruitment process. Beyond that, the appellant was not entitled to any further relief. Insofar as his claim for regularization is concerned, we dismiss the present Special Appeal. 22. As far as the second relief for the claim of equal pay for equal work, i.e. to grant the minimum of the pay scale, which is founded upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) (paragraph no. 61), is concerned, the claim of the appellant appears to be justified. 23. The appellant has made a categorical statement in paragraph no. 15 of the Writ Petition that the work, duties and the length of working hours of the appellant/writ petitioners are quantitatively and qualitatively same as a regular incumbent, and he performs various duties of respondent no. 2-Institute, and, therefore, he is entitled to minimum salary, as paid to regular incumbent, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In paragraph no. 17 of the Writ Petition, the appellant specifically relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). 24. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit, but they did not specifically meet the writ petitioners’ averment made in paragraph no. 15 of the Writ Petition. In paragraph no. 17 of the Writ Petition, the appellant specifically relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). 24. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit, but they did not specifically meet the writ petitioners’ averment made in paragraph no. 15 of the Writ Petition. Therefore, it appears that there was no denial of the fact that the appellant was performing the same duties, and discharging the same responsibilities, as a regular Wireman would have been doing, had a regular Wireman been appointed. 25. In Jagjit Singh (supra), the Supreme Court framed the issue, that came up for its consideration, in paragraph no. 6. The said paragraph reads as follows :- “6. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present set of appeals, necessitates a bird's-eye view on the legal position declared by this Court, on the underlying ingredients, which govern the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. It is also necessary for resolving the controversy to determine the manner in which this Court has extended the benefit of “minimum of the regular pay scale” along with dearness allowance, as revised from time to time, to temporary employees (engaged on daily-wage basis, as ad hoc appointees, as employees engaged on casual basis, as contract appointees, and the like). For the aforesaid purpose, we shall, examine the above issue, in two stages. We shall first examine situations where the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has been extended to employees engaged on regular basis. And thereafter, how the same has been applied with reference to different categories of temporary employees.” 26. The Supreme Court, then proceeded to consider a host of earlier decisions rendered by it, and concluded in paragraph no. 61 as follows :- “61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the present bunch of cases would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post.” 27. In the light of the aforesaid, we allow the present Special Appeal, insofar as the appellant’s claim for payment of wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular wireman, is concerned. In the light of the aforesaid, we allow the present Special Appeal, insofar as the appellant’s claim for payment of wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular wireman, is concerned. To that extent, the Special Appeal stands allowed. The appellant shall be paid the wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale) extended, or extendable to a regular Wireman in the respondent- Institute. The difference in the wages payable on the said basis, and the wages actually paid, shall be calculated and arrears be paid within three months. 28. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.