MT VARGHESE Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE letter dated 20.05.1981, the appellant was offered employment with respondent No. 2 Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) as a Draftsman, on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said letter and he was asked to confirm in writing, in case the said terms were acceptable to him. The appellant accepted the terms stipulated in the said letter and joined the employment of respondent No. 2. Vide letter dated 27.07.1984, the appellant was taken into regular employment as a Draftsman and put on probation, on the terms and conditions, stipulated in the said letter. The services of the appellant were confirmed vide letter dated 29.04.1989. In the meantime, vide representation dated 25.05.1987, made to the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 MDT, the appellant sought fixation of his salary at par with MDT staff at Mumbai. The said request was rejected by respondent No. 2 MDT vide letter dated 01.10.1987. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 3272/1989, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.08.2011. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, took the view that the appellant was guilty of laches though the writ petition was filed within two years of rejection of the representation vide letter dated 01.10.1987 as far as the pay parity with the employees posted at Mumbai is concerned and soon after the appellant was confirmed with effect from 01.10.1984, vide letter dated 29.04.1989, as far as confirmation is concerned.

(2.) THIS is appellant's own case that on 01.07.1982, he had made a representation, seeking regularization on the ground that he had completed more than one year of service. Though the appellant claims to have made further representations in this regard, the fact remains that the writ petition, seeking confirmation on completion of six months of service came to be filed only in the year 1989, i.e., about 7 years, after making the first representation in this regard. The appellant, in our opinion, was not justified in waiting for as many as seven years to come to the Court. Even if his representations were not being answered, he ought not to have waited after a reasonable time from the date of submitting the representation. The time of about seven years taken by the appellant in this regard, cannot be said to be a reasonable time to wait for the respondents to take a decision on his representation with respect to confirmation in the service and, therefore, to this extent, the appellant certainly was guilty of laches. We agree with the learned Single Judge that making repeated representations does not explain the laches in approaching the Court for grant of appropriate relief.

(3.) AS regards pay parity with his counterparts in Mumbai and other places, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the said claim is based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents due our attention to clause (b) of the Offer Letter dated 27.07.1984, whereby the appellant was informed that he shall be paid a fixed Dearness Allowance of Rs. 300/ - P.M. linked to average All India Consumer Price Index at 433 (1960 -100). He was further informed that variable D.A. will be paid to him at the rate of Rs. 1.30 per point movement of the average quarterly Index (1960 -100) over Index Figure of 433 and the same will be revised quarterly based on the average CPI for the second preceding quarter. In addition, he was entitled to CCA and HRA applicable at New Delhi. The appellant having accepted the aforesaid specific term, contained in the Offer Letter dated 27.07.1984, cannot, in our view, claim parity with his counterparts posted in Mumbai. This is not the case of the appellant that any other employee posted at Delhi, on the terms similar to the terms contained in the letter dated 27.07.1984 has been granted parity with his counterparts in Mumbai by applying textile DA pattern, which is applicable to the Draftsmen at Mumbai. Therefore, there is no discrimination with the appellant as far as the employees posted in Delhi are concerned.