GYAN CHAND JAIN Vs. M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an ex-employee of the M.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the MPEB for brevity) has claimed the benefit of upgradation in pay, from the due date on completion of the requisite years of service, consequential benefit of revision of pay and payment of arrears of salary along with the interest. The petition was filed when the petitioner was in service, aggrieved by an order by which the petitioner was granted the benefit of upgradation in the pay scale with effect from 1-4-1997. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the MPEB formulated a policy for the purposes of giving benefit of higher pay scale to its employees, on completion of 9/18/25 years of service. Circulars were issued in this respect on 6-5-1982 and 31-3-1983. However, in continuation of the said circular subsequently a circular dated 3-10-1985 was issued categorically prescribing that those who have not been given any promotion for no fault on their part because of non-availability of the clear vacancy on the promotional post and those who were stagnating in one pay scale for a complete period of 9 years of service, would be put in the next higher pay scale subject to condition that they are found fit for grant of the said benefit. Similar were the conditions for those employees who have completed 18 and 25 years of service without any promotion. It was prescribed in the said circular that options were to be given within three months from the date of order aforesaid by all such employees opting for a date from which they were claiming benefit of higher pay scale. The manner of consideration was also prescribed in the said Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Technical Apprentice on 17-3-1976, and on completion of the said training subsequently appointed as Sub Engineer, which post was later on designated as junior Engineer. In terms of the appointment, the period of technical apprenticeship was to be counted in service. According to the petitioner, he has completed 9 years of service on 17-3-1987 and thus, became entitled to grant of benefit of next higher grade pay scale. In terms of the circular though it is alleged by the petitioner that he made an application on 17-3-1987, but no record is produced. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working in Co-operative Society, which was constituted for the purposes of working in the rural areas discharging functions of the MPEB. The employees and officers of MPEB were sent on deputation to work in the said Society. Since the petitioner was on deputation, his option letter was forwarded, improperly not to the concerning authority of the respondent-MPEB, but to the Chief Engineer. This option was never acted upon and case of the petitioner was never considered. However, he was not granted any benefit of the next higher pay scale and the fact was brought to the notice of the authorities. Later on, such documents were sent for consideration, but the same were not considered. On the other hand, an order was issued on 6-3-1998 giving benefit of higher pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 1-4-1997. The petitioner submitted the representation and contended that the documents were already sent by the concerning authorities where the petitioner was working, therefore, instead of granting the benefit of higher pay scale from the date opted for, grant of such higher pay scale to the petitioner from a subsequent date is not justified and proper. However, again nothing was communicated to the petitioner, no decision was taken on such a representation though correspondence was done in this respect and, ultimately, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the reliefs indicated hereinabove.

(2.) On service of the notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is very categorically contended by the respondents that by the order dated 6-3-1998 the benefit of higher pay scale was granted to the petitioner and if the petitioner was not satisfied with the said order, he ought to have rushed to this Court at his earliest. However, the writ petition was filed only in the year 2000, and therefore, in such a belated claim the reliefs cannot be granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner was considered along with those who have not opted for grant of higher pay scale from any date, but on overall consideration, the Committee which was convened its meeting on 10-10-1991, did not find the petitioner fit for grant of such benefit. The petitioner was not fulfilling the criteria laid down by the said Committee and as such, the petitioner was not selected for grant of the said benefit. Again in the year 1993, when the Committee meeting was held on 28-7-1993, the candidature of the petitioner was considered, but he was again not found fit. This being so, there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with retrospective effect as he was not found fit and such orders were never called in question. It is further contended that the submission of the option was to be made strictly in accordance to the Scheme. Even if the petitioner was working on deputation, he was required to send the appropriate application to the appropriate authority, which the petitioner has failed to do, as no document is placed on record to indicate that at any point of time such an option was given by the petitioner within the stipulated period. Thus, it is contended that the petition is hopelessly delayed as also based on totally misconceived facts and as such, deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) By filing rejoinder, the petitioner has tried to explain that his claim was not properly adjudicated or considered by the authorities. If his application was not properly received in the office of the respondents though made in appropriate manner, it cannot be a folly on the part of the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the application submitted by the petitioner, received in the office of respondents, has not been annexed with the return to demonstrate that the application was not rightly made by the petitioner. It is tried to emphasize that had the option been properly examined, the claim of the petitioner considered in appropriate manner, the petitioner would not have been denied the benefit of higher pay scale from the appropriate date for which the option was submitted by him. Thus, it is contended that rejecting the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner would be entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.