T KRISHNAN UNNI Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed by two direct recruits who joined as Junior Engineers on April 7, 1993 and on August 29, 1983 in the service of the first respondent. They were in the scale of Rs. 8201480. First respondent issued Ext. P1 Circular dated September 26, 1985 proposing to extend the grade of Rs. 960-1710 to those who were in the scale of Rs. 820-1480 as on January 1, 1984. The employees were given an option. The petitioners exercised the option and both the petitioners were granted the scale of Rs. 960-1710 under Exts. P2 and P3 orders dated December 11, 1985. Subsequently by communication dated February 27, 1986 the petitioners were informed that they were not eligible for the option to come to the scale of Rs. 960-1710. Exts. P4 and P5 were the orders under which they were informed. The re-fixation of salary made by P2 and P3 orders were cancelled. Representations were made to the Joint General Manager to reconsider the matter. Subsequently representations were repeatedly made but the management insisted upon saying that as direct recruits they are not entitled to the benefits of Ext. PI Circular and they are not entitled to the higher scale of pay. Only those people who have been promoted to that scale and who were in that post on January 1, 1984 could be entitled to the higher scale of pay. Finally the request of the petitioners was rejected under Ext. P16 dated April 26, 1993 and hence the petitioner had to file this original petition for quashing Exts. P4, P5, P10, P11 and P16 which are arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.

(2.) EXT. P1 Circular relates to Junior Managerial Personnel who are in the grade Rs. 820-1480 on April 1, 1984. They were rightly given the higher scale of Rs. 960-1710 with effect from January 1, 1984. The same was cancelled without any notice and without giving them an opportunity to represent their case. As a result of the Circular Ext. PI persons promoted as Junior Engineers and subsequently appointed after the petitioners as junior Engineers are given the higher salary. The Catena of decisions of the Supreme Court held that persons who are doing similar work are entitled to the same salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work. By a wrong application of Ext. P1 juniors to the petitioners were given the higher scale of pay and the same higher scale of pay is denied to the petitioners. Subsequently when the multiple grade system was introduced with effect from January 1, 1988 all persons who completed six years in the grade of Rs. 9601710 were given the higher grade of Rs. 1060-1930. Many of the juniors of the petitioners got benefit of that higher grade. But the petitioners are denied similar treatment. Mere protection of the seniority of the petitioners is not a solace. The petitioners only seek the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The denial of the same to trie petitioners violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Petitioners also pray for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give the benefit of Ext. P1 Circular to the petitioners and to give them the grade Rs. 960-1710 from January 1, 1984 and consequential benefits and to refix their salary and pay the arrears of salary as per the refixation.

(3.) THE original petition is opposed by a counter filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. In short the counter mentioned as follows: Ext. PI Circular dated September 26, 1985 clearly mentions that all employees who were promoted to the lowest managerial positions on or before January 1, 1984 and were on the grade Rs. 8201480 as on January 1, 1984 will be given the higher grade of Rs. 9601710. The Circular does not apply to direct recruits. Clause (f) of Ext. P1 specifically states that the existing orders will continue to apply in respect of Officers promoted to the scale of Rs. 820-1480 after January 1, 1984 and also to persons recruited directly from out-side. Petitioners being direct recruits from outside they are not eligible for the extended scale of Rs. 960-1710. By mistake Exts. P2 and P3 orders were passed granting them the benefits of higher scale of Rs. 960-1710. On scrutiny it was found that the petitioners not being employees promoted and they being direct recruits are not eligible for the higher scale of pay and accordingly Exts. P2 and P3 were canceiled under Exts. P4 and P5 orders. Petitioners were also informed that on completion of three years' service in the scale of Rs. 820-1480 they will be considered for promotion to the grade of Rs. 960-1710. With effect from July 4, 1986 and August 29, 1986 the two petitioners were promoted to the higher scale of Rs. 960-1710, on completion of three years' service in the scale of Rs. 820-1480. There is no violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioners and hence the original petition is not maintainable. With respect to the claim that Ext. PI Circular dated September 26, 1985 proposed to extend the grade of Rs. 960-1710 to all those people who were in the scale of Rs. 820-1480 as on January 1, 1984 is incorrect. It would apply only to the promotees to the lowest managerial position and who were in the scale of Rs. 820-1480 on January 1, 1984. For all representation given by the petitioners proper replies were given. Exts. P4, P5, P10, P11 and P16 are perfectly valid and legal and they do not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The various grounds raised by the petitioners are devoid of merits. It is not correct to say that under Ext. P1 Circular the respondents had given higher grade of Rs. 960-1710 to petitioners' juniors who were in the grade of Rs. 820-1480 as on January 1, 1984. That scale of Rs. 960-1710 was extended only to promotees promoted to the lowest managerial position on or before January 1, 1984, and who were in the grade of Rs. 820-1480. Exts. P4 and P5 are only orders correcting the mistakes which were inadvertently made by issuing Exts. P2 and P3 orders. There is no violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. When multiple scales of pay are available to certain posts, it is natural that the employees with long years of experience will draw the higher scale of pay and there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. The petitioners were promoted to the higher scale with effect from September 4, 1986 and August 29, 1986. Higher multiple grades are available only on completion of six years in the present grade. The petitioners were also given the higher multiple grade of Rs. 1060-1930 on their completing six yeas in the present grade of Rs. 960-1710. Exts P4, P5, P10, P11 and P16 are perfectly valid and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this original petition, and the original petition may be dismissed.