P P GEORGE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records in C.C.P.No,83/1999 dated 6.12.2004 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and compute the benefits as prayed in C.C.P.No,83/1999 on the file of 1st Respondent. WRIT Petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of Claim of Rs.6,21,423/- being the difference on account of wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.04.1967 to 30.06.1993.

(2.) BRIEF facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner joined the service in the Respondent Airlines as Typist in 1962 and thereafter selected as Stenographer in 1985. Petitioner was posted to Ahamadabad in February 1987 and at that time his basic pay was Rs.165/-. Basic pay was fixed as Rs.230/- as on 01.04.1967. (ii) Earlier, Petitioner has filed C.C.P.No,87/1993 under Sec.33-C(2) of I.D. Act before 1st Respondent on the ground that in terms of Sec.12(3) Wage Settlement his basic pay should have been fixed at Rs.285/- instead of Rs.230/- p.m. and for the period 1967 to 1993 [date of retirement] a sum of Rs.2,77,280/- was due to him whereas only Rs.2,48,096/- was paid and difference amount of Rs.29,184/- was due to the Petitioner. By the order dated 06.04.1998, first Respondent accepted the contention of the Petitioner and computed a sum of Rs.29,184/- being the arrears due to him under various Wage Settlements. (iii) Petitioner has filed C.C.P.No,83/1999 claiming Rs.6,21,423/- allegedly difference in pay arising out of the correct fixation of basic salary. Case of Petitioner is that Petitioner made several representations to the Respondents claiming difference by stating that correct basic pay should have been fixed at Rs.285/- as on 01.04.1967 and Petitioner would be entitled to the consequential difference in salary. Case of Petitioner is that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,21,423/- being the difference on account of wrong fixation of pay.

(3.) MR. S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is entitled to basic pay at the rate of Rs.285/- and also entitled to the increase in the Dearness Allowance. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that earlier Claim Petition in C.C.P.No,87/1993 was filed for basic pay and the present Claim Petition has been filed for Dearness Allowance which is consequential to the increase in the salary. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that Labour Court failed to note that what is claimed is the difference in Dearness Allowance and Labour Court erred in dismissing the Claim Petition.