HINDUSTHAN FLNORO CARBONE LTD Vs. G SHANKATR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 16232 of 1994 on the file of this Court praying to review the order of this Court dated 15-03-2004. The writ petitioners-respondents herein are the employees of the review petitioner. They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare that the action of the review petitioner in not extending the scale of pay of Rs.700-22-832-26-988-31-1174 (revised) to the respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and to direct the review petitioner to extend the said scale of pay to the respondents herein with arrears and consequential benefits. According to the writ petitioners, the Management appointed certain persons as Plant Operators in the year 1986 in the pay scale of Rs.420-18-528-22-660-26-816 carrying the revised pay scale of Rs.700-22-832-26-988-31-1174. The writ petitioners were appointed as Plant Operators in the year 1987 in the pay scale of Rs.365-14-449-18-557-22-689 carrying the revised pay scale of Rs.640-80-748-22-880-26-1036. The Plant Operators appointed in 1986 are doing the same work as that of the writ petitioners, but the writ petitioners are being given lesser scale of pay. Since there was discrimination in treating the writ petitioners on par with the Plant Operators appointed in the year 1986, they are entitled for equal scale of pay that was made applicable to the Plant Operators appointed in the year 1986.

(2.) The Management-review petitioner did not file any counter explaining the circumstances under which two different scales were made applicable, despite giving several opportunities therefore, an order was passed by this Court on the basis of the record placed by the writ petitioners. When the learned counsel for the writ petitioners represented that there cannot be any difference in scales of pay in respect of the employees holding same post and when the duties and responsibilities of all the persons are one and the same, there was no denial by the Management through a counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court came to a conclusion that the uncontraverted allegations made by the writ petitioners would clearly indicate that the pay in respect of the writ petitioners is discriminatory with that of the persons who were appointed in the year 1986. This Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition directing the Management to pay the scales of pay on par with the Plant Operators appointed in 1986 and extend of consequential benefits. The 'Management filed the present review petition seeking review of the order in the writ petition by explaining the circumstances under which the Management could not resist the writ petition,

(3.) The learned counsel for the review petitioner G.Sudha submitted that the Court did not notice that the counsel on record did not inform the Management to make alternative arrangement on account of his illness to decide the case on merits and allowed the Court to pass orders basing on the affidavit averments made by the workmen and requested to peruse the record and regulations placed by the Management to know the correct facts and to appreciate whether there is any force in the contention of the writ petitioners or in asking for equal pay with the pay of Plant Operators appointed in 1986. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that though the appointment of the writ petitioners was about one year subsequent to the appointment of Plant Operators in 1986, the writ petitioners are entitled for equal scale of pay and as the Management discriminated them by applying lesser scale of pay, this court was right in allowing the writ petition by granting the relief as prayed for.