DEYA RANI GANDHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner prays for quashing of orders Annexures P3 and P4 dated October 6, 1988 and January 20, 1989 passed by Managing Director, Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh. The brief facts may first be enumerated.

(2.) Petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 as Lady Manager (Gazetted Class II) through Haryana Public Service Commission in the Government Doll Making Centre at Ambala. She worked there upto March 31, 1974 when the Government of Haryana decided to close down the centre and absorbed it with the entire staff in public interest, in the Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited respondent No. 2. Petitioner was, thus, retired from the service of Haryana State and her permanent absorption in the service of respondent No. 2 i.e. the Corporation was ordered. It was in the same capacity in which the petitioner was working with the respondent-State and she was to get all other benefits for which the Corporation employees were entitled to with effect from June 1, 1977. However, subsequently the date of absorption was treated with effect from April 1, 1974 instead of June 1, 1977. When the petitioner was absorbed in the manner aforesaid in the service of respondent No. 2 with effect from June 1, 1977, she was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 350-20-500/30-590/30-830-35-900 (Government scale) with the basic pay of Rs. 680/- per month. In the meeting held by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, it was decided to give pay scale of Rs. 500-30-650/40-1050/50-1250 (Corporation scale) with initial start of Rs. 800/- per month. It may be made clear here that she was to be given three advance increments of Rs. 40/- each i.e. Rs. 120/- on the basic pay of Rs. 680/- which she was drawing in the Government Department with all other benefits to other employees of the Corporation were entitled to. With a view to demonstrate the facts mentioned above, minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors held on May 26, 1977 have been placed on the record of the case as Annexure P-2. On April 1, 1979 there was revision of pay scales and the petitioner was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 800-1600 and her basic pay was accordingly fixed at Rs. 1,450/- per month. Therafter, the post of petitioner was upgraded and she was given the pay scale of Rs. 1200-50-1500/60-1860 with effect from March 27, 1985 and her basic pay was fixed at Rs. 1680/- per month. On yet another revision of pay scales with effect from January 1, 1986, the petitioner was given the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300/75-3200-100-3500. However, the aforesaid revision in pay scales came into being after the retirement of petitioner who retired as such on October 31, 1987. It has remained totally undisputed that the petitioner was allowed annual increments regularly right from the date of absorption from June 1, 1977 to the date of her retirement i.e. October 31, 1977 and at no stage any objection was made that the initial increment in the first year of absorption was wrongly given. After the retirement of petitioner, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed order Annexure P3 dated October 6, 1988 without giving any notice to the petitioner wherein it was held that the petitioner was wrongly given the first annual increment of Rs. 40/- on basic pay of Rs. 800/- and thereafter till the date of her retirement. Meanwhile, the petitioner challenged by way of a writ petition the action of the respondents by which retiral benefits to her were substantially withheld. The petition came up for final hearing on October 27, 1988 when the Division Bench of this Court issued a direction to the Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner for release of her retirement dues. In consequence of the orders passed by this Court, the Corporation passed fresh order dated January 20, 1989 (Annexure P4). The two orders, references of which have been given above, i.e. Annexures P3 and P4, vide which the initial pay of the petitioner at Rs. 770/- plus Rs. 30/- was charged and the orders which came into being after the decision of the writ petition aforesaid have been challenged. The orders have been styled by the petitioner to be arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The basis contention of petitioner is that when the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 Corporation in their meeting held on May 26, 1977 had decided to give the initial start of Rs. 800/- per month at the time of absorption of petitioner, the Managing Director of the Corporation had no power to interpret the said order after a gap of 11 years and that too after the retirement of the petitioner. It is further contended that inasmuch as the earlier decision was taken by the Board of Directors, the impugned order could not be passed without the approval of Board of Directors.