JOSEPH PARAKAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in these Original Petitions as to whether the benefits of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ext. P-9 are available only to the parties to the above Writ Appeal or to the petitioners who are not parties to the above proceedings; The petitioners in these Original Petitions were granted advance increments on account of the fact that they possessed the experience and qualification and there was non-availability of Marine Officers for appointment in the Cochin Port Trust. Subsequently, the above benefit was withdrawn by the Port Trust basing on the report by the Agarwal Committee. The above withdrawal of the benefits was subject matter of certain Original Petitions filed before this Court. Initially a learned judge of this Court dismissed the Original Petitions. On appeal filed by the aggrieved persons this Court held that the appellants therein are entitled to the advance increments even after the clarification issued by the central Government was enforced. The Port Trust was directed to fix pay in accordance with the above declaration. The reason for the above conclusion will be seen in paragraph 5 of the judgment which is as follows: "5. However, in reference to the second point, the port Trust has not chosen to follow the said clarification and continued the fixation of higher than the minimum scale of reference to other officers referred in Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum of Appeal. According to the learned counsel, Mr. Neelambaran (joined on 2. 4. 1979), Mr. Sathe (joined on 19. 1. 1979)and Mr. T. P. A Pisharody (joined similarly) were fixed on a higher scale by taking the advance increments granted to them and if the recommendations contained in Exts. R3 (b) and R3 (c) that in all cases of appointments after 1. 1. 1974 minimum to be fixed, are followed no distinction can be drawn. Even then M/s. Sathe and T. P. A. Pisharodi would be ineligible if the rule is enforced. We do not find that any distinction can be validly be made between the officers. If these officers referred to in Par a. 4 are eligible to continue in a higher scale than the minimum, the Port Trust cannot adopt a different standard for the appellants. This aspect of the matter has not been brought to the attention of the learned single judge. In that view of the matter, we hold that if the Port Trust is fixing higher scale of pay than the minimum to some of its officers, the same benefit should be extended to the appellants herein". Ext. P9 judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in ext. P-10 judgment.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the petitioners filed representation to the Port Trust requesting to extend the benefits of Exts. P-9 and P-10 judgments to them also. All the petitioners except the petitioners in O. P. Nos. 18744 and 18171 of 1966 have retired from service. As far as the retired persons are concerned it is only a nominal increase in their pensionary benefits. The request of the petitioners were rejected by the Port Trust for the reason that the benefit of the judgment would be extended only to the petitioners/ appellants in the Writ Appeals.