S. MANOHARA CHARY Vs. GIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as Combatant Clerk in Indian Air Force. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner applied in the year 1986 for the post of Assistant (Clerical). He was selected and offered appointment by a communication dated 4.3.1988 issued by the 3rd respondent. He was placed on probation wit basic salary of Rs. 520-00 in the scale of Rs. 520-30-670-45-850-60-1210-75-1660 with such other allowances as may be admissible under the Rule in force. Accordingly he joined the service and his services were regularised with effect from 17.9.1988. At the time of discharge from the Air Force, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay Rs. 332-00 and he was getting total emoluments Rs. 1,113-00. Taking into account the Circular dated 9.2.1982 issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation with regard to the fixation of pay of re-employed Ex-Servicemen, the petitioner's basic was fixed at Rs. 715-00 in the scale of Rs. 520-1660. After taking into account the D.A. of Rs. 901-00 and pension of Rs. 212-00, he was allowed to draw emoluments aggregating Rs. 1,828-00 and this was further revised in the year 1989. In fixing the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the said Circular, the petitioner was notionally treated to have been appointed as LDC in the Central Government service. The presumptive emoluments were worked out as if he continued to work as LDC in the Central Government service till the date of his discharge. The case of the petitioner is that on his appointment as an Assistant in the Insurance Company, his pay should have been fixed in accordance with the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) in its office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is applied by several other public sector undertakings of the Central Government. According to the Office Memorandum of 1963, the service rendered as a Combatant clerk shall be treated as equivalent to the service of Junior Clerks in the Civil Departments in which the Combatant Clerks are absorbed after their release/retirement from the Armed Forces, and their initial pay on such absorption shall be fixed at a higher stage in the scale above the minimum equal to the number of completed years of service as Combatant Clerk. In other words, according to the petitioner, the fixation of pay should have been made on the footing that he was appointed as an Assistant/LDC in the Insurance Company itself and the pay shall be calculated with reference to the pay drawn by such staff in the Insurance Company, instead of treating the petitioner as LDC in the Central Government service notionally. It is also submitted that the deduction of pension to the extent of Rs. 125-00 is also illegal in view of the instructions contained in Office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963. It is contended that the denial of the - benefit of pay fixation as per the Office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963 issued by the Ministry of Finance by applying the Circular issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution apart from the fact that it amounts to breach of the instructions issued by the Government of India which are binding on the Insurance Companies. It is difficult to agree with this contention. It must be noted that the petitioner was appointed afresh as an Assistant in the Insurance Company. In fact, the terminology 're-employment' may be inappropriate in the case of the petitioner. Nevertheless it is common ground, the pay fixation which governs the re-employed persons is being extended to the case of Ex-servicemen appointed afresh in the service of the Insurance Companies. The Government of India and the General Insurance Corporation of India felt that on such appointment, Ex-servicemen shall be given certain benefits in recognition of their service in the Defence Department. As already noticed, by virtue of extending that benefit to the petitioner, he became entitled to draw much more than what would be admissible to a freshly recruited Assistant. But for the Circulars or special instructions issued by the 1st respondent based upon the instructions of the Government of India, the petitioner would not have any legal right to claim these additional emoluments. The contention of the petitioner now is that the additional emoluments allowed to him are not correct and the emoluments shall be worked out on the basis of the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India nearly three decades back. I see no legal basis for accepting these arguments. First of all, there is nothing to show that the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance in its Office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963 were being followed by the nationalised Insurance Companies which came into being in the year 1972. The Office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963 governs the cases of absorption in Civil Departments and does not strictly govern the cases of absorption in statutory corporations or public sector undertakings. There must be something to show that the nationalised Insurance Companies have adopted the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance. Even assuming that the said instructions were being followed and are bound to be followed, there can be no bar against following revised instructions issued by the Government of India. A perusal of the impugned Circular dated 9.2.1982 shows that the said Circular was issued only on the basis of the clarification received from the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance issued further instructions on 9.5.1988 in regard to the pay fixation of Ex-servicemen who joined the service of L.I.C., G.I.C. and its subsidiaries. It is not in dispute that the pay fixation is not opposed to either the Circular dated 9.2.1982 or the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance on 9.5.1988. The petitioner has no right to insist that the instructions issued by the Ministry of finance in the year 1963 should be followed by the General Insurance Corporation and the Insurance Companies under its control for all time to come and that it can be varied only to his advantage but not to his disadvantage. The method and manner of fixation of pay and to what extent the weightage has to be given for the service rendered in the Defence for the purpose of pay fixation are primarily matters of policy and unless it is demonstrated that the methodology adopted is patently arbitrary and irrational, this Court not interfere with the said policy decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Merely because that at the time the petitioner joined the service certain instructions and circulars were operating in the area of taxation of pay of Ex-servicemen, the petitioner cannot fall back upon those instructions and see to enforce them, despite the subsequent revision of norms governing pay fixation. I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the impugned Circular dated 9.2.1982. The petition cannot start from a priori notion that the pay fixation of Ex-servicemen should always be guided by the principles laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963. If such a priori notion is eschewed I do not think that there is any irrationality or unreasonableness in the criteria adopted in the impugned Circular or the subsequent circulars. Incidentally, it may be observed that the very argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner strikes at the root of his other arguments that respondents 1 to 3 are bound by the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time, with regard to the service conditions of the staff. Having regard to the fact that the Central Government itself issued revised instructions on the subject, the Insurance Company felt themselves bound to implement the same. The General Insurance Corporation gave effect to the same by issuing the impugned circular.

(2.) I do not therefore see any substance in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain other public sector undertakings like BHEL axe still following the instructions issued in 1963 office memorandum, I must say that there is no definite material in this behalf. No doubt the learned counsel has referred to the judgment in M. Jayaraju Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BHEL (A.P.), 1988(7) SLR 102 to substantiate his contention that the office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963 is being followed by BHEL. But that was a case in which the employee concerned was appointed in which the year 1980. It is not known whether the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 11.4.1963 are still being followed by the BHEL. The point that arises for decision in that case is entirely different. Even assuming that some of the public sector undertakings are still following the instructions of 1963, an argument cannot be founded on the basis of Art. 14 of the Constitution that the same treatment shall be extended to the Insurance Companies as well. The service conditions of the employees of all public sector undertakings or statutory bodies need not necessarily be uniform and the question of comparison of the employees of one organisation to another does not legitimately arise. Art. 14 cannot be invoked to compare the service conditions of separate and distinct organisations though they may be owned and or controlled by the Central Government.

(3.) The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.