Mandamus to Decide Representations for Parity in Emoluments for Guest Teachers Under Minimum Pay Principles.

The 95 applicants are Guest Teachers and Lecturers working under the Government of NCT of Delhi, some since 2011.

They are paid on a per-period basis with periodic discontinuities, such as during summer vacations.

The applicants contend they are appointed against regular vacancies because permanent staff were not recruited in a timely manner.

Seeking pay parity, allowances (DA, HRA, TA), and leave benefits equivalent to regular staff, the applicants submitted several representations to the respondents.

They approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the respondents to decide these representations in light of existing judicial precedents.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to pay and allowances at par with regular staff, including basic minimum pay scale and Dearness Allowance.

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide the applicants' pending representations in light of the Tribunal’s prior ruling in Aditi Kumari v. GNCTD.

The court primarily relied on the principle of parity and the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as adjudicated in the precedent Aditi Kumari v. GNCTD & Ors. (OA No. 1398/2018, decided on 17.09.2024), which addressed the entitlement of guest teachers to the basic minimum of the pay scale and Dearness Allowance.

The court applied administrative law principles regarding the duty of authorities to pass reasoned and speaking orders on pending representations within a reasonable timeframe.

The Tribunal noted the applicants' admission regarding the nature of their guest teacher contracts but balanced this against the claim that they function against regular vacancies.

The applicants argued that their case is covered by the decision in Aditi Kumari, asserting they are similarly placed to the parties in that litigation.

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the pay parity claim at this stage, the Tribunal focused on the procedural lapse by the respondents in not deciding the applicants’ pending representations.

With the respondents’ counsel expressing no objection to a time-bound administrative review, the Tribunal determined that a direction to the respondents to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" would meet the ends of justice without the court having to express an opinion on the merits or limitation issues of the case.

It directed the respondents to consider the pending representations of the 95 applicants in light of the judgment in Aditi Kumari v. GNCTD (OA No. 1398/2018) and other relevant rules.

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. No costs were awarded.