INDRAJIT BORAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions may be dealt with together since not only they involve common and identical issues for consideration but the learned counsel appearing on either side also made common submissions. For appreciation of the respective contentions of parties, the factual details noticed in C. W. P. No. 805 of 1993 and C. W. P. No. 1458 of 1995 as disclosed from the pleadings of parties may be adverted to. C. W. P, No. 805 of 1993

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed jointly by two petitioners. The first of the petitioners claims to be Personnel Officer in the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (for short NHPC or Corporation), Chamera Hydro Electric Project and is said to be posted at the time of the filing of the writ petition at Khairi, Chamba District in Himachal Pradesh. He was said to have been appointed with effect from June 2, 1989 as Probationary Executive (Personnel) under an appointment order dated June 2, 1989 filed as Annexure P-l, in the pay scale of Rs. 700-40-900- EB-40-1100-50-1300. Under the terms of the said order he was obliged to complete a period of probation for one year and after such completion he was regularised as Personnel Officer with effect from July 12, 1990, by a proceeding dated October 15, 1990 on the terms and conditions contained in his original order of appointment. It is stated in the said appointment order itself that the pay scales are under revision and a High Powered Pay Committee has been constituted by Government of India for revision of scales of pay, allowances etc. and in the event of such revision he will be placed in the revised pay scales corresponding to the pay scales mentioned in the appointment order, from the date of revision or date of joining, whichever is later. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he was stated to have been appointed as Assistant Manager (Personnel) in NHPC in December 1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600 and is said to be working at the time of the filing of the writ petition at Chamera Hydro Electric Project, Banikhet, Chamba District. It is admitted by this petitioner that his services were regularised, according to the appointment order, and the conditions similar to the one with reference to the revision of pay scales, as noticed earlier, was incorporated in the order of appointment relating to this petitioner also. It is also the claim of the petitioners that they were being paid the pay scales and allowances on the Central Dearness Allowance (C. D. A.) pattern. Reference is made also to the submission of the report by the High Powered Pay Committee in November 1983 and to the initial inaction of the same by the Government of India resulting in several associations of the employees belonging to Public Sector Enterprises approaching the Supreme Court of India for appropriate directions to implement the recommendations of the High Powered Pay Committee and the decision rendered thereon by their Lordships of the Apex Court on May 3, 1990, which is also reported in (1990) 3 SCC 436 (Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association v. Jute Corporation of India Ltd.) According to the petitioners, the Apex Court directed, among other things, the extension of the benefits of the scales of pay and Dearness Allowance as recommended therein to those employees who have been appointed with specified terms and conditions for grant of Central Dearness Allowance and that the same will equally be applicable to the employees, who by the rules laid down by the concerned Public Sector Enterprises are being paid on C. D. A. pattern. It is also claimed that consequent upon the judgment of the Apex Court and the guidelines issued thereafter by way of implementation of the directions of the Apex Court by the Department of Public Enterprises dated June 12, 1990, the respondent Corporation released the pay scales and allowances on C. D. A. pattern to its employees with effect from January 1, 1986 and inasmuch as the petitioners were appointed in the year 1989 they were even allowed the revised pay scales on C. D. A. pattern with effect from the dates of their appointments and were also paid the arrears towards the revised pay scales on C. D. A. pattern. It is claimed that prior to such release of the revised pay scales, the petitioners were being paid unrevised pay scales and allowances on C. D. A. pattern also and an assertion is made that at no point of time, they were paid pay scales and allowances on any other pattern than the C. D. A. pattern.

(3.) WHILE that be the position, according to the petitioners the respondent has issued an order dated May 19, 1993 filed as Annexure P-4 of the decision to adopt scales of pay, allowances and other perquisite on Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pattern with effect from January 1, 1989 in respect of the employees, excluding Board Level functionaries, appointed or promoted on or after January 1, 1989, who are existing in the old scale of Rs. 550-900 and above (3rd Central Pay Commission ). This decision was said to have been taken in pursuance of the order dated June 12, 1990 and the further approval conveyed by Ministry of Power in their communication dated May 11, 1993. It was also informed therein that in view of the communication dated May 10, 1993 by the Ministry of Power the earlier office Order No. 10/92 and dated May 7, 1992 stood withdrawn and consequently such of those employees who were given revised pay scales of Rs. 1640-2900 and above under the earlier order dated May 7, 1992, shall be brought back to the status quo ante in the respective 3rd Central Pay Commission Pay Scales and that they will be fixed in, the correspondingly adopted I. D. A. Pay Scales with effect from January 1, 1989 onwards. It may be useful to advert to the order No. 10/92 dated May 7, 1992 under which it has been decided that the employees appointed on or promoted to 3rd Central Pay Commission Pay Scales during the period January 1, 1989 will be allowed the HPPC pay scales and related allowances/benefits and those appointed on or promoted to the 3rd Central Pay, Commission scales of pay on or after July 1, 1990 will be deemed to have been appointed on IDA scales of pay and Industrial Dearness Allowances arid that since the Scales of Pay and Allowances on IDA pattern are being formulated for such employees and pending finalisation and implementation of IDA pay scales and allowances these employees appointed on and promoted to, on or after July 1, 1990 shall continue to draw pay and allowances provisionally on the existing terms and conditions. The grievance of the petitioners is that as a result of office order dated May 19, 1993 the pay scale admissible to the petitioners on revised CDA pattern is being withdrawn and the difference in the pay scales and allowances in the I. D. A. and CDA scales of pay is also being deducted from their future salary and they have been informed about the disbursement of pay and allowances for the months of June 1993 onwards, according to IDA pattern of pay scales and allowances and the said decision is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory besides being unconstitutional. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the scales recommended by the High Powered Pay Committee on CDA pattern having been adopted and allowed by the respondent Corporation, the withdrawal of the same under the order dated May 19, 1993 amounts to clear violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the very appointment letters of the petitioners. It is also stated for the petitioners that the said order dated May 19, 1993 is violative of the orders of the Apex Court reported in (1990) 3 SCC 346, particularly, in view of the fact that the appointment orders of the petitioners stipulated that they will be allowed revised pay scales on CDA pattern and withdrawal of such scales on subsequent date would constitute breach of conditions of order of appointment besides constituting alteration of conditions of service. It is also asserted that doctrine of estoppel would also operate against the respondent-Corporation for doing so. Allegation of discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is also made on the supposition that the withdrawal has been made in respect of the employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989 and not in the case of those who have been appointed before January 1, 1989.