DHANPATI RAM Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed with the respondent no.2 Rural Electrification Corporation, a wholly owned Government of India Public Sector Undertaking and claims to have been promoted to Grade E-2 on 16th July, 1997. It is further the case of the petitioner, that as per the Office Order dated 8th June, 2000 of the respondent no.2 Corporation, the pay scale of executive and other posts in respondent no.2 Corporation were revised w.e.f. 1 st January, 1997 but certain anomalies were found therein and which was removed vide order dated 7th May, 2003 and whereby the petitioner became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 11225-17250 p.m.; that however the approval of the said pay scale was required from the respondent no.1. Government of India and pending such approval, the emoluments at the revised pay scale released to the employees including to the petitioner. THE petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31st January, 2004. Since till then the approval of the Government of India to the revised pay scale had not been received, the respondent no.2 Corporation at the time of relieving the petitioner obtained Indemnity Bond and Fixed Deposit for the differential amount received by the petitioner, from the petitioner.

(2.) IT is further the case of the petitioner that on 19 th July, 2006 a "decision" was taken to further revise the pay scale of the post which the petitioner was holding w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 and in accordance wherewith the petitioner would have become entitled to further amounts from the respondent no.2 Corporation. IT is further pleaded that in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, direction was issued for taking a decision in pursuance to Minutes of the Meeting dated 19th July, 2006.

(3.) SUMMARY record of the discussion of the meeting held on 19th July, 2006 does not show it to be a decision. The expressions such as "could be" are used for further enhancing the pay scale in the respondent no.2 Corporation to bring them at par with NHPC. The counsel for the petitioner is thus not right in contending that the order dated 22nd July, 2010 impugned in this petition is contrary to any earlier decision, inasmuch as no such decision is borne out from the documents filed.