KAMALA DEVI Vs. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the drawal by the junior of higher pay than his admitted senior is arbitrary and is in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the case. There cannot be any universal rule that a junior can in no circumstances draw higher pay than his senior. Where the junior is a promotee and the senior is a direct recruit to a particular cadre, the junior will be drawing higher pay. There may be a variety of similar circumstances justifying the drawl of higher pay by a junior. Therefore, the decision on the point raised by the appellant will largely depend upon the fact of this case. The minimum facts necessary for the decision of the case are the following :

(2.) The reason for this disparity is explained in the following manner. There was a long term settlement between the management and the employees concluded on 12.9.1985. One of the terms of the settlement was the creation of the post of special grade Assistant between the posts of Senior Assistant and Junior Executive. As a result, the employees who got promotion as Junior Executive, after the implementation of the settlement, came through the post of Special Grade Assistant. So, they got a fixation of pay on promotion to the newly created post and got another fixation on promotion to the post of Junior Executive. So, the promotees to the post of Junior Executive after the implementation of Ex. P1 agreement began to draw higher pay than those who were promoted to that post earlier. The seniors took up cudgels against this discrimination. But the management resisted the protest contending that it was the result of implementation of a long them settlement which is binding on all employees including the seniors. Few of the aggrieved employees approached this Court against this discrimination by filing O.P. No. 14745 of 1993. The same was dismissed upholding the stand of the management that the disparity is the result of a binding long terms settlement. But, later, the management themselves came forward and attempted to rectify the anomaly by giving one additional increment to those persons who were promoted as Junior Executives between 1.4.1983 and 1.7.1984. It appears, the agreement was implemented with effect from 1.7.1984. The pleading of the management in this regard is contained in paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit which is extracted below :

(3.) The decision to grant one increment for those who were promoted as Junior Executive between 1.4.1983 and 1.7.1984 was not pursuant to any binding settlement. It was based on the decision of the Board of Directors taking into account the anomaly of the senior drawing lesser pay without any relevant reason. As a result of this grant of one additional increment, the above said Kasim Pillai started drawing higher pay than the appellant. This prompted the appellant to file representations before the respondents which were rejected by Exts. P5 and P7 communications. Challenging those communications and seeking consequential benefits, the appellant filed O.P. No. 16391 of 1994. The same was dismissed by the judgment under appeal.