APSEB HYD Vs. P RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 6-6-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondents herein was allowed. Facts: The respondents have retired from the 1st appellant-Board on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-4-1990 and they have also put in qualifying service to be eligible for pension. The pay scales were revised with effect from 1-7-1986 by which time the respondents herein were drawing maximum pay. The revised pay scales allow grant of three annual increments beyond the time scale in respect of those who had reached or had crossed the maximum pay as on 1-7-1986. However, in respect of the respondents herein the additional amount was shown as personal pay and the stagnation increments were adjusted towards the said additional amount. Assailing the same the respondents herein filed the writ petition seeking the following prayer: To issue a writ or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pension and other terminal benefits of the petitioner on par with the other UDCs retired on or after 1-7-1990 and pay all the arrears of pension and other terminal benefits.

(2.) The learned single Judge having regard to the intent and purport of the scheme held that the respondents had been discriminated against while calculating the pension on the ground that they had retired prior to the introduction of the scheme.

(3.) Mr. S. Ravindranath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the learned single Judge erred insofar as he failed to take into consideration B.P. Ms. No.481, dated 4-2-1991 which is applicable only to those who are on rolls as on 1-7-1990. The learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that the respondents retired on 30-4-1990, the said scheme cannot be said to have any application. Alternatively the learned Counsel would contend that the said scheme having been introduced keeping in view the settlement dated 29-1-1991 entered into between the Wage Negotiations Committee and the APSEB before the Joint Commissioner of Labour and State Conciliation Officer in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same could not have been the subject-matter of interpretation in a writ petition. The learned Counsel would submit that even the definition of pension has not been correctly interpreted.