HIMMAT SINGH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') on 01.11.2012 (Annexure P-16), whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of Productivity Link Incentive (PLI) for the period from 01.09.1999 to 31.07.2002 remained unsuccessful. The petitioner as a Member of Indian Police Service was sent on deputation to Indian Airlines as Director (Security) vide letter dated 28.10.1997. Apart from usual terms & conditions, condition No. 12 is that 'in all other matters not specified herein the deputationist will be governed by the rules and conditions of the service of the Department to which he belongs'. It is asserted by the petitioner that in terms of such condition, he along with many other Officers including Officers of All India Services were given PLI, but consequent to an audit objection, the payment of PLI was stopped. However, the same was resumed in respect of the employees of Indian Airlines, but the same was not resumed in respect of Officers of All India Services etc. An original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench by some of the officers including members of the All India Services. It was on 01.12.2006, such application was allowed in respect of the applicants including of the members of All India Services. A perusal of the said order (Annexure P-11) shows that the Bench has allowed the application for the reason that PLI was paid to Shri P.C. Sen, a member of the All India Services on deputation to Indian Airlines. The Bench was of the opinion that such action declining benefit of PLI to the applicants is a discriminatory action and, thus, not sustainable in law.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh claiming PLI, which has since been declined by the Tribunal, inter alia, for the reason that the petitioner cannot claim payment of PLI on the basis of any law or rules or the terms and conditions of deputation. The reasons for payment prior to its stoppage are not on record. The emoluments and perquisites received by the applicant in his parent cadre are irrelevant considerations. The payment of PLI is not a legally enforceable right.

(3.) The scheme of granting PLI is not on record. However, some indication in respect of such benefit is available in an order passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 773 of 2008 titled 'The Indian Airlines Plant Engineers vs. Union of India' - decided on 14.1.2010. It is noticed that the PLI Scheme was introduced by the Indian Airlines in 1996 for various groups of officers and employees. The bipartite settlement concluded between the management of the Indian Airlines and All India Aircraft Engineers' Association concerning payment of PLI. That settlement covers Aircraft Engineers, Senior Aircraft Engineers and Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineers. The management issued an order on 28.06.1996 extending the benefit of PLI Scheme to the technical category of employees represented by Air Corporation Employees Union. Still later, the management concluded a bipartite settlement with the Indian Aircraft Technicians' Association, representing Senior Inspector/Senior Foreman, Inspector A/Foreman A, Inspector/Foreman, Senior Master Technician/Master Technician, Senior Technician and Technician. The appellants before the Kerala High Court were members of Indian Airlines Officers' Association. After mutual negotiation, a scheme for payment of PLI was evolved for the members of that Association, including Plant Engineers, like the appellants. Since the members of the said Association were not workmen in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, no formal bipartite settlement was signed.