HP TDC LTD. Vs. RAKESH SOOD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th September, 2012 in CWP(T) No. 8921 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the Corporation to grant the petitioner pay of higher post of Finance Manager w.e.f. 6th June, 1992 till he discharged the duties in that office.

(2.) THE first contention, raised before us, was that the appellant Corporation has its own Regulations and for which reason FRSR has no application. However, this plea was not specifically raised before the learned Single Judge as no reference thereto is found in the impugned judgment. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the observations made in Paragraph -5 of the impugned judgment. That, however, in our opinion, is not the same argument which is canvassed before us. What was argued before the learned Single Judge and as noted in Paragraph -5, is that in the fact situation of the present case, respondent was entitled to only 10% additional (presumptive pay) as he was never asked to officiate/discharge the duties of Finance Manager and for that reason his case was not covered under FR -49. This submission has been negatived by the learned Single Judge. We shall advert to that aspect a little later. Suffice it to observe that the argument of the appellant that FRSR has no application to the Corporation, deserves to be stated to be rejected, inasmuch as, from the record it is noticed that the Corporation, during the pendency of the writ petition, itself invoked powers under FR -49(3) and issued Office Order dated 22nd June, 2011 (Annexure A -1) in the appeal memo. Thus, the argument under consideration is rejected. Reverting to the question as to whether the respondent was entitled for benefit under FR -49, that deserves to be answered on the basis of communication, issued by the Managing Director of the appellant dated 6.4.1992, the same reads thus: -

(3.) It is noticed that Shri J. Shriniwasan, the then Finance Manager, tendered resignation and in his place respondent was directed to take over the complete charge of the office of said Shri Shriniwasan in addition to discharging his own duties. This, in our opinion, has been justly held by the learned Single Judge to be a formal appointment to hold full charge of the duties qua the respondent, which is the quintessence for attracting 49(1) and 49(3) of the FR. The appellant, however, contends that the appellant has already given benefit to the respondent, which he deserves in terms of Office Order dated 22nd June, 2011. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect and, in our opinion, has rightly noticed that the appellant did not pass on the benefit of pay of the higher post to the respondent and merely granted 10% in the pre -revised pay scale which was not sufficient compliance of FR -49. It is on that finding that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. In the fact situation of the present case, we have no reason to take a different view in the matter. Hence, dismissed.