K RAJA LINGO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PRESIDENT OF DISTRICT BACKWARD CLASSES SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No. 1572/89, petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the District Backward Classes Co-operative Society Ltd., Adilabad on 17-10-1984. He claims that such appointment was in the scale of pay of Rs. 290-425. The corresponding revised scale with effect from 1-1-1986; is Rs. 740-1150. Admittedly, petitioner was an additional temporary appointee. Regular post was occupied by one G. Narayana. Petitioner asserts that he was paid monthly salary of Rs. 1074-85 up to 11-7-1988, but thereafter, it was drastically reduced to a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/. Petitioner's case is that he has been doing the same work as a regular attender Mr. G. Narayana who has been drawing salary in the same regular scale. He also claims that he is entitled by reason of his continuous service for a period of over three years and nine months, to be regularised in service and also to be paid salary in the regular scale of pay from July, 1988 as he was paid from the date of his appointment, namely from 17-10-1984. The Managing Director of the A.P. Backward Classes Finance Corporation Limited issued a Circular Rc. 1441/C/83 dated 24-9-1987 containing the staffing pattern for the District Societies. Clause (8) of the Circular related to the post of regular Attender (Scale). Clause (9) provided for an addi tional post of Attender on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/-. It was apparently pursuant to that circular, that the remuneration of the petitioner was reduced to a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/-. instead of Rs. 1074-85 which he was drawing up to 11-7-1988. Petitioner's case is that reduction in his emoluments to a monthly consolidated remuneration is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For this reason, he was not receiving salary from 12-11-1988. Petitioner was called upon to explain. In his explanation dated 19-10-1988 he insisted that he is entitled to be paid salary in the scale applicable to the other attender. He also requested for his retention as an Attender on regular scale of pay. Petitioner submits that reduction in remuneration without notice is violative of principles of natural justice as also his right to livelihood under Article 21 and right to equal remuneration under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. It is in these circumstances that he filed W.P. No. 1572 of 1989 seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the District Collector dated 12-7-1988 reducing his remuneration to a consolidated amount of Rs. 400/-. He also seeks a direction to the respondent to restore him to the scale of pay at Rs. 1074-85 with effect from 12-7-1988.

(2.) In W.P. No. 5332/89 he seeks a direction to regularise his service as an Attender in the scale of pay at Rs. 1074-85 in the respondents' society. By an order dated 6-2-1989 in W.P.M.P. No. 1984/89 in W.P.No. 1572/89, this Court directed that no direction for payment of salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 740-1150 can be granted and that he may receive the consolidated pay of Rs. 400/- under protest without prejudice to his contentions in the writ petitions. By another interim order dated 31-1-1989, I had occasion to direct that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner subject to adjustment as per further orders. Counsel for the petitioner informed me that the petitioner has received that amount.

(3.) Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner who was an additional and temporary Attender could be paid only Rs. 400/- per month as per instructions contained in the circular of the A.P. Backward Classes Service Corporation Ltd., which is the apex body of the District Societies like the one in which the petitioner is employed. The fact that the "petitioner was paid salary in a scale applicable to regular Attenders from 1984 to 12-7-1988 is not denied. It is the case of the respondents that payment of that scale did not have the effect of taking away the power of the apex body to' regulate the service conditions of the employees of the District Societies or to prescribe staffing pattern or to streamline and rationalise the staff requirements; remuneration etc. Since the petitioner refused to accept consolidated Salary of Rs. 400/-, second respondent issued memo dated 17-10-1988 requesting him to explain the reason of his conduct. However, he accepted salary for the duty period thereafter. Respondents also assert that retention of the petitioner in the Society on a consolidated salary is really a matter of concession, since an additional post of Attender is not necessary in the society Reference in this connection is made -to letters of the third respondent dated 16-5-1988 and 16-9-1988 whereby it was suggested that the petitioner may be adjusted within the staffing pattern and may thus be continued in service. Lastly it is submitted that neither the staffing pattetn nor the financial condition of the Society justifies either the regularisation of the petitioner as an Attender in a scale of pay, or payment of any more than the consolidated pay which the petitioner is now receiving.