ROHATGI YOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. HMT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tis writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondent-Company in not releasing the arrears of salary to the petitioner on account of revised pay scales, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary as well as the difference in the terminal benefits as a result of the revision of pay scales effected from 1-1-1992.

(2.) The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Company HMT Limited, which is a company completely owned by the Government of India. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent- Company in the year 1979 as Deputy Manager in the Lamps Division. He was promoted as Manager in the year 1984 and further promoted as Assistant General Manager in the year 1991 and thereafter, in view of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the respondent-Company, the petitioner had opted to the same and his option to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme was accepted by the respondent- Company by proceedings dated 22-7-1995 with effect from 31-7-1995. Thereafter, there was a revision of scales in October, 1995 retrospectively with effect from 1-1-1992. It is stated that the respondent-Company did not pay the difference in the salary and in the terminal benefits as a result of the revision of pay scales. The petitioner has also stated that though it was agreed as per the memorandum of understanding between the management and the employees that the arrears for the period 1-1-1992 to 30-9-1995 will be examined after substantial improvement in the financial position of the company, the same were not paid to the petitioner. However, the arrears payable to the employees continuing in the company were paid in the form of recoverable advances, but without making any payment to the persons like the petitioner who had retired or took voluntary retirement. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the respondents stating that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable as the unit under which the petitioner had worked is not functioning and is only carrying on certain trading activity. Though the company is completely owned by the Government of India, still it cannot be treated as a State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. With reference to the petitioner's claim it is stated that in view of the bad financial position of the company in so far as the arrears are concerned, the same are not paid to any of the employees, who had opted for retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The learned Counsel also stated that the petitioner's case would be reviewed along with the other similarly placed persons when the financial position of the company is improved. It is also contended that a writ petition filed by a similarly situated persons was dismissed by this Court which was even confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.