KAILASAM Vs. HTL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has joined the Hindustan Teleprinters Limited during September 1993 as a Skilled Operator. Subsequently, he has acquired educational qualifications viz., Degree in Law (BGL) and M.A. degree in Public Administration. In view of the qualification acquired by him, he was transferred to the Public Administration Department by order dated 8.3.1998. THEreafter number of promotions were made in the Administration side under service conditions, which is also applicable to him and the people who were very much lesser qualifications than the petitioner were promoted as officers. Since the petitioner's name was not considered for such promotion, he has submitted his representation to the management. In the meanwhile the petitioner was served with an order dated 2.7.1993 fixing scale of pay of Rs.1365-2744. THE petitioner has accepted the said scale of pay under protest on the ground that he can pursue with the representation submitted to the respondent for further promotion. Since the petitioner has expressed his acceptance under protest, he was informed by a letter dated 1.9.1993 that the order dated 2.7.1993 is kept in abeyance. Consequently, the petitioner has also sent a further appeal to the Chairman and the Managing Director on 12.10.1993. But however, no order was passed.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the management has introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme during September 1993, which was opted by the petitioner. The petitioner was relieved from service on 25.3.1994 under the said scheme. However, when the benefits were disbursed to the petitioner under the said scheme, it was not in accordance with the scale of pay as communicated by proceedings dated 2.7.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.12347 of 1996, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.1.1996. IN pursuance of the same, the impugned order dated 11.2.1997 came to be passed by the respondent which is now under challenge in the above writ petition.

(3.) WITH regard to the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the respondent company is not amenable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Construction of India, it is not disputed that on the date of filing of the writ petition, the respondent company was a Government owned company and as such this court has entertained the writ petition. Even though the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in P.SUBBAN v. HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS, LTD., (2003 (3) L.L.N. 1079), wherein a decision of the Division Bench was also referred to, I do not think that the facts in the said decision are applicable to the facts of the case on hand.