AMAR KUMAR BARIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application has been preferred challenging, inter Alia, an order dated 9th April, 2010 passed by the respondent no.3.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioners were employees of National Instruments Limited (hereinafter referred to as NIL). Pursuant to the directives issued by the Honourable Supreme Court on 14th March, 1986, the Government of India appointed a High Power Pay Committee (hereinafter referred to as HPPC) which gave its final report to the Government of India on 24th Nov., 1988 recommending implementation of Central Government pay structure for the employees of all the 69 Public Sector Enterprises including the NIL following Central Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as CDA) pattern and upon consideration of the same the Honourable Supreme Court ultimately delivered the Judgement on 3rd May 1990 issuing directions for implementation of the said HPPC report and in compliance of such directives, the Government of India, Ministry of Programme Implementation, Department of Public Enterprises (here in after referred to as DPE) issued memoranda dated 12th June, 1990 and 24th Oct., 1997 observing, inter Alia, that the pay scales in respect of employees of all the 69 Public Sector Enterprises including the NIL would be revised with effect from 1st Jan., 1996. NIL was, however, declared a Sick Industrial Company on a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR) and after protracted discussions and negotiations between the management of NIL and Unions for rehabilitation, a memorandum of settlement was arrived at on 6th Oct., 1997 and the employees, in the best interest of revival of NIL agreed that the status quo in respect of existing pay scales would be maintained for a period of at least 3 years. Regarding treatment of sick enterprises, the Pay Revision Committee, inter Alia, observed that irrespective of their financial position the Public Sector Enterprises that followed the CDA pattern would get the benefit of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission as per orders of the Honourable Supreme Court. Subsequent thereto, NIL issued salary bills to the petitioners showing accrual of emoluments according to the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and interim relief was granted. In the midst thereof, the BIFR by an order dated 12th Nov., 2002 concluded that the NIL was not likely to become viable on long term basis and that it be wound up. Against the said order an appeal was preferred. Subsequent thereto, the Calcutta University and Jadavpur University submitted their individual proposals to the Department of Heavy Industry expressing the desire to take over their assets and liabilities of NIL and that in a meeting held on 24th June, 2005, decision was adopted to take over the assets and liabilities of NIL by Jadavpur University and the Department of Heavy Industry agreed to take the responsibility of all the dues pertaining to the employees of NIL up to the last date. Subsequent thereto, a representation was made on 6th July, 2006 claiming the benefit of revised pay scales. It was categorically pointed out by the petitioners that employees similarly situated who had retired/resigned under Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been disbursed their dues of the revised pay scales and that they are entitled to the similar benefits. Since such claim of the petitioners was not attended to by the respondents, the petitioners were constrained to prefer an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No.985 (W) of 2007 and the same upon contested hearing was disposed of by a Judgement dated 30th Oct., 2009 directing the respondents to re -evaluate the grievance of the petitioners and to re -appreciate the same in the light of the observations made in the said Judgement. The respondent no.3 thereafter passed an order on 9th April, 2010 rejecting the petitioners' claim.

(3.) Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that about 500 CDA employees were given the benefits of pay revision as recommended by the HPPC which were akin to the benefits recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. Only 33 employees including the petitioners have been denied the benefits of pay revision. An invidious discrimination had been meted out to the petitioners by denying them the benefits as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations, though such benefits had been given to the employees who have retired in the normal course or under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and who had resigned and/or died with effect from 1st Jan., 1996. He further submits that the impugned order dated 9th April, 2010 has not been passed in the light of the observations as made in the Judgement dated 30th Oct., 2009 passed in W.P. No.985 (W) of 2007 and hence the impugned order dated 9th April, 2010 is unsustainable in law.