S PAUL Vs. ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, an ex-employee of the respondent No.1/Engineers India Limited, seeks terminal benefits pursuant to resignation w.e.f. 31.1.1996 on the basis of taking the petitioner as having migrated to Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern from Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern of pay scale w.e.f. 1.7.1991. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that having applied for resignation vide letter dated 1.1.1996 w.e.f. 31.1.1996, he had in the meanwhile on 29.1.1996 applied pursuant to an extant scheme to convert his DA benefit from CDA pattern to IDA pattern, and his resignation having been accepted on 30.1.1996 without in any manner having rejected the request to change to IDA pattern as for by the letter dated 29.1.1996, the petitioner is entitled to pay scale w.e.f 1.7.1991 on IDA pattern.

(2.) THE basic dispute which arises between the parties with respect to petitioner claiming an IDA pattern instead of CDA is that if the petitioner is treated to have resigned w.e.f. 31.1.1996 on IDA pattern then the petitioner will get much larger emoluments, whereas if the petitioner is to get terminal benefits on the basis of CDA pattern, then, the terminal benefits will be lesser than as available in the IDA pattern. Also, this issue can be understood in this manner that if the petitioner is allowed changing of DA pattern from CDA to IDA as the same results in grant of higher pay scale, would then the respondent No.1 be said to have accepted the resignation consciously and deliberately taking the petitioner to be entitled to IDA pattern instead of CDA pattern?

(3.) THE limited issue which therefore calls for decision in the present case is whether the respondent No.1 had in fact consciously allowed the petitioner to change his DA pattern from CDA to IDA before his resignation came into effect w.e.f. 31.1.1996. Whereas the petitioner pleads that inasmuch as before the letter dated 30.1.1996 was issued to the petitioner communicating the acceptance of resignation, no communication was addressed rejecting the request of the petitioner dated 29.1.1996 to convert from CDA pattern to IDA pattern, thus he is entitled to IDA pattern because if the refusal was given to the petitioner before 31.1.1996 then he may not have resigned w.e.f. 31.1.1996. The respondent No.1 on the other hand contends that the letter dated 8.2.1996 was issued by an administrative error and therefore the petitioner cannot be given benefit of the conversion from CDA pattern to IDA pattern.