JOSEPH C C Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The grievance voiced by him in this Writ Petition is regarding the alleged wrong interpretation of Ext.P-1 long-term settlement signed between the Electricity Board and its unions on the basis of Ext.P-5 clarificatory circular issued by the Board in respect of the long-term settlement. By Ext.P-1 long-term settlement, the management and the unions agreed for revision of scales of pay of the workmen which contained the mode of fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay. Consequently the Petitioner's pay in the revised scale was fixed by Ext.P-2 order in accordance with the Rules of fixation given in Clause 8 of Ext.P-1. Later on, that was sought to be modified on the basis of Ext.P-5 Circular and excess amounts were directed to be recovered from the Petitioner. The reason for the same is that prior to the revision of pay the Petitioner was actually getting salary less than what he was to get in the minimum of the revised scale of pay prescribed for the Petitioner. Under Clause 8(g) of Ext.P-1 it was stipulated that the next increment of the employee whose salary was fixed in the revised scale of pay would be given on the date on which the normal increment falls due in the pre-revision scale. The pay of the Petitioner was to be fixed with effect from 1-8-1993 as per Ext.P-1. The Petitioner's normal increment date was 1st September of every year. Petitioner's pay was fixed in the revised scale of pay on 1-8-1993. Since prior to the revision he was drawing pay less than that in the minimum of the revised scale of pay, in order to fix the pay of the Petitioner in the minimum of the revised scale of pay, Rs. 104 was to be added. Since the Petitioner's normal date of increment was 1st of September as per Clause 8(g) of Ext.P-1, he was given increment on 1-9-1993. Next year he was given his next increment on 1-9-1994. The Electricity Board took the view that since in order to make the Petitioner's pay in the minimum of revised scale of pay an amount of Rs. 104 had to be added, he should not be given the increment due to him on 1-9-1993. It is consequent to the same that by Ext.P-3 the so called excess amount drawn by the Petitioner is sought to be recovered. The Petitioner approached this Court challenging the said recovery by filing O.P.No.5315 of 1999, in which the learned Judge of this Court was passed the following judgment:

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Board taking the stand that since the Petitioner had obtained an undue advantage which was not contemplated in Ext. P-1, by adding Rs. 104 to his pay, while fixing the pay as per Ext.P-1, that should be considered as the increment due on 1-9-1993 which only has been done in Ext.P-5. They would therefore submit that there is nothing wrong in recovering the extra advantage received by the Petitioner by giving him one increment also.

(3.) I have considered rival contentions in detail. Perhaps Petitioner may have obtained an unintended advantage pursuant to Ext.P-1, but that does not mean that the management can unilaterally alter the terms of the settlement. I do not find any ambiguity in the settlement, which requires to be clarified unilaterally. The Rules of fixation are very clear. In the process of fixation of pay, if the Petitioner gets an unintended advantage that cannot be denied to him on the ground that it was an unintended advantage. As per the Rules of fixation given in Ext.P-1, after the pay is fixed in the revised scale of pay as per Ext.P-1, the workmen are entitled to their next increment on the date on which the normal increment falls due. Petitioner's pay has been fixed albeit granting him an advantage of Rs. 104, which may have been unintended. Even then, the fixation is perfectly in accordance with Ext.P-1. That being so, the Petitioner cannot be denied the next increment due to him on 1-9-1993 as provided in Clause 8(g) of Ext.P-1 simply because in the process of fixation of pay as per Clause 8, he had to be given Rs. 104 extra. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Supreme Court has in Fabril Gasosa's case held that the management cannot unilaterally change the terms of a settlement when it was a written settlement. The relevant portion of that judgment reads this: