BHANU LODH Vs. TRIPURA JUTE MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner obtained the Degree of Master in Commerce (M. Com) and Master in Business Administration (MBA ). He found a job in the Tripura Apex Weavers Co-operative Society, Agartala (for short, 'co-operative Society), the post being Store-cum-Marketing Officer drawing a salary of Rs. 1,700/- in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1750/- in the year 1985. The Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. , the first respondent herein, is a Govt. Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as 'the Company' ). In 1985 the Company advertised for the post of Commercial Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2350/ -. The petitioner applied for the post on 9. 7. 1985 and was interviewed by a Selection Board of the Company on 14. 9. 1985. He was selected for the post of Commercial Officer following which he tendered resignation from the post of Store-cum-Marketing Officer of the said Co-operative Society. His resignation was accepted and he was released on 14. 1. 1986. To his surprise, he was appointed as officer Trainee on 27. 2. 1986 on a consolidated stipend on Rs. 500/- per month only w. e. f. 15. 1. 1986, which was the date of his actual joining after the offer dated 28. 12. 1985 was received by him. In his joining report (Annexure-4), he clearly raised an objection against the stipend of Rs. 500/- per month only on the ground that he was selected for the post of Commercial Officer carrying the regular pay scale of Rs. 1400-2350/ -. He further pointed out that he was receiving Rs. 1700/- in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1750/- as Store-um-Marketing Officer of the Co-operative Society in support of which he submitted a salary certificate from his previous employer. He requested the respondents for granting him regular pay scale of the Commercial Officer with protection of the last pay drawn by him in his previous job. His objection, however, failed to evoke any favourable response. On 17. 3. 1987, after more than a year as Officer Trainee, he was appointed as Officer on Special Duty (OSD) for a period of six months. After expiry of the period, another order was issued on 22. 9. 1987 directing him to continue in the said post of OSD. On 8. 3. 1988, after a period of about one year as OSD, his appointment to the post of Commercial officer Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1530/- with retrospective effect from 17. 9. 1987 was confirmed. No reason was shown why he could not be appointed to the post of Commercial Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2350/ -. As he was out of his previous service, he had no other alternative but to accept the lower job and swallow this unfair and unreasonable treatment. On 11. 1. 1987 he submitted a prayer to the Chief Minister of the State explaining the above situation with request to intervene and direct the respondents to appoint him to the post of Commercial Officer for which he was selected. He claims that inspite of favourable order of the Chief Minister, which has, however, been disputed, the respondents refused to provide redress by appointing him to the post of Commercial Officer. His repeated representations to the Administrative Officer and Managing Director of the Company fell into deaf ear. On 27. 4. 2005, after a long period of 19 years, the Managing Director of the Company, the second respondent herein, addressed a letter to the petitioner (Annexure-8) explaining why he could not be appointed to the post of Commercial Officer for which he was interviewed and selected. The interesting part of the reply reads :

(2.) THE Company and its Managing Director, the two respondents herein, in their counter-affidavit admitted the fact that the petitioner was interviewed and selected for the post of Commercial Officer carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2350/- in 1985, but he was initially appointed as Officer Trainee and then OSD. Finally, he was appointed to the post of Commercial Officer Grade-II. In reply to the only grievance of the petitioner that he was not appointed against the post of Commercial Officer for which he was interviewed and selected, the respondents' sole contention reflected in para 14 of the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner could not be appointed to the post of Commercial Officer only because the post was not included in Tripura Jute Mills Employees' (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 made by the State Government (for short 'rop Rules, 1999' ). Referring to a document (Annexure-12), which is a letter by the Administrative Officer to the petitioner written on 8. 8. 2003, the respondents contended in para 16 of the counter-affidavit that a proposal for inclusion in ROP Rules, 1999 of the posts of Commercial Officer and Commercial Officer Grade-II along with scales of pay indicated in that letter was submitted to the State Government, but as the State Government did not approve the proposal the petitioner could not be appointed to the post of Commercial Officer. The aforementioned contention once again failed to answer the only question which has fallen for consideration of this Court in the present controversy, why the respondents could not appoint the petitioner to the post of Commercial Officer in 1986 following his interview and selection in 1985 in the unrevised scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2350/ -. It is not the case of the respondents that in 1986 the post of Commercial Officer was not in existence or that there was any proposal of revised pay for this post round the corner or that approval of the State Government was necessary but could not be obtained. The reply of the respondents ends with the singular evasive contention that for non-inclusion of the post of Commercial Officer in the ROP Rules, 1999, the petitioner could not be appointed to the post of Commercial Officer.

(3.) IN the re-joinder, the petitioner has brought into focus the fallacy of this stand taken by the respondents contending, inter alia, that as per Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, the power to revise pay scale of its officers and employees vested with the Company itself for which no approval of the State Government is at all contemplated or provided. By a notification dated 7. 7. 1999 (Annexure-14), the Finance department of the State Government revoked the Tripura Jute Mills Employees' (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 framed by it w. e. f. the date of its issue directing that the Board of Directors of the Company shall consider revision of pay scales of the officers and workers of the Company on the lines of proposals and instructions issued separately. Obviously, this was done realising that the Company having a separate legal entity and being the independent authority to decide all matters pertaining to the officers and workers of the Company, the State Government should not have issued the Tripura Jute Mills Employees' (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. Hence the revocation of the same. Referring to a letter of the Managing Director dated 12. 4. 2002, addressed to the Joint Secretary (Finance), Government of Tripura on the revision of pay scales of the officers and workers of the Company, the petitioner contended that admittedly, as stated in clause (a) of that letter, the Board of Directors of the Company was authorised to create posts and appoint officers and employees as per clause 93 (h) of the Memorandum and Articles of Association. In clause (c) of the said letter, it has been clearly stated that all the posts, which were in existence on 30. 6. 1989, were sanctioned and regularised. The list of such posts enclosed with Annexure-15 shows the post of Commercial Officer at serial No. 15 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2350/-, shown vacant as on 30. 6. 1989. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that though the post of Commercial Officer was very much in existence, it was left vacant without appointing the petitioner to that post for no rhyme or reason.