Smt. Satya Singh and Others vs Family Planning Association of India and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—By this writ petition, petitioners claim the relief of gratuity and provident funds from their employer/respondent no. 1/Family Planning Association of India. Respondent no. 1 has filed its counter-affidavit in which in para 16 it is stated that it has framed separate service rules concerning the employees working in the branch of the respondent no. 1 as a private body vis-a-vis those working under Government funded project. The case of the petitioners is decided under Rule 43 of the General Rules and Service Regulations of the respondent no. 1. It is further pleaded that respondent no. 1 has amended the rules keeping in view the interest of the respondent no. 1 as regards the availability of funds from various sources. Respondent no. 1 is an NGO and therefore it is pleaded that it does not follow the government rules in totality.

I have had an occasion to consider this aspect of employees of the respondent no. 1 who are not employed in the government funded project and this has been decided by me in W.P.(C) No. 9063/2011 titled as Dr. T. Renuka & Ors. Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. decided on 27.11.2013. This judgment dated 27.11.2013 reads as under:-

Petitioners are employees of respondent no. 2-Family Planning Association of India. Family Planning Association of India has two sets of employees. One set of employees are those employees who like the petitioners became part of the department of respondent no. 2 which was fully funded by the government for a family planning project. Respondent no. 2 is otherwise a private NGO. The second set of employees are private employees of this private NGO who do not form part of the department of the respondent no. 2 which is fully funded by the government for family planning project. Petitioners claim parity with the private employees of the respondent no. 2 with respect to gratuity and other terminal benefits, and for which purpose, reliance is placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.P. Singh & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (now GNCTD) and Ors., in W.P.(C) No. 3007/1989 decided on 5.8.1992.

The principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' has its source in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies to the State and instrumentalities of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The principle of equal pay for equal work'' cannot be enforced for claiming parity by employees of the State or instrumentalities of State with the employees who work in private commercial establishments. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim parity with private employees. Even in the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of M.P. Singh (supra) parity was claimed by the petitioners who were employees of the department of respondent no. 2 which was fully funded by the government for family planning projects, with those employees in other societies and organizations which were funded by the government for the family planning projects. In M.P. Singh''s case (supra), there is no ratio laid down, and nor could any ratio be laid down that the principle of ''equal pay for equal work'' applies between government employees or employees of a State and private employees. Therefore, I reject the argument that petitioners can claim equal pay for equal work with those employees who are private employees of respondent no. 2.

So far as the claim of the petitioners for payment of gratuity and terminal benefits similar to the benefits granted to other employees of respondent no. 2 who are in the department of respondent no. 2 which is fully funded by the government for the family planning project is concerned, then in that case, if the government funding and the government circulars entitle employees such as the petitioners in the department of respondent no. 2 which is fully funded by the government to the grant of gratuity and other terminal benefits, petitioners shall be granted gratuity and terminal benefits in terms of the circulars and directions of the government as applicable to the employees in the department of the respondent no. 2 which is working for the family planning projects.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed so far as the claim for equal pay for equal work is concerned, however, it is allowed in terms of the directions given above so far as the gratuity and terminal benefits are concerned. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Applying the reasoning in the case in W.P.(C) No. 9063/2011, the petitioners who appear to be employees of the private part of the respondent no. 1/organization i.e. petitioners not being employees of the government funded project, they cannot claim benefits which are granted to employees of the respondent no. 1 working in a government funded project. There cannot be comparison of service conditions of private employees with the government employees. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.