Delhi High Court
Indian Road Constn. Corpn. Ltd. vs K.P. Grover & Ors. on 12 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIIAD(DELHI)24, 78(1999)DLT691, 1999(49)DRJ337
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar, Manmohan Sarin
ORDER Arun Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th October 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents claiming revised pay scales in the grade of Rs.1640-2900 for the posts of Assistants, redesignated as Senior Accountants, Sr. Assistants and P.A./Senior Stenographers held by the respondents in the Indian Road Construction Corporation Limited, the appellant herein. The appellant Corporation is a public sector undertaking. The respondents stated in their writ petition that in several public sector undertakings the revised scales have been accepted and implemented and they should also be treated similarly and get the benefit of revised pay scales. The learned Single Judge noted that the scale for the posts in question stood revised in case of employees of the Govt. of India vide office memo dated 31st July 1990. The said O.M. was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, and had been adopted by all the government departments and most of the public sector undertakings. Accordingly he directed that the appellant will give the pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900, with effect from 1st January 1986 to the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondents are not entitled to the revised pay scales because the posts held by the respondents in the appellant Corporation did not involve same nature of work as was the case for similar posts in the Govt. of India. He contended that for providing parity in pay scales the nature of duties and other obligations of the posts with which parity is sought should be similar.
3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the argument raised on behalf of the appellant did not survive in view of the fact that the respondents were being granted the revised scales as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. He drew our attention to the judgment dated 3rd May 1990 of the Supreme Court in C.M.P. No.10864 of 1989 in Writ Petition No.13044 of 11984, Jute Corporation of India Officer's Association vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited & Another etc. The matter related to claim of revision of pay scales of employees of various Government of India Undertakings/ Public Sector Undertakings. The Supreme Court noted that in these cases the relief claimed was with regard to implementation of the recommendations of High Power Pay Committee in respect of emoluments to be paid to the officers belonging to class I and class II service employed in different Public Sector Enterprises. The employees were claiming that they should be granted all the benefits of pay revision and revision of other allowances which may be announced from time to time by the Central Govt. for its employees and that there should be no discrimination between them and those directly employed by the Central Govt. By the said order the Supreme Court directed that the pay revision for those employees in respect of whom the recommendations were being directed to be implemented will take place only as and when similar changes are effected for the Central Govt. employees. The appellant Corporation was one of the Public Sector Undertakings which was covered by the said order of the Supreme Court. This was followed by a revision of pay scales for the employees of the Govt. of India holding similar posts vide office memo dated 31st July 1990 referred to herein before. By virtue of the said memo the pay scale for posts included in the Assistant Grade of Central Secretariat Service was revised to Rs.1640-2900. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents the learned Single Judge had only followed the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above in granting relief to the respondents.
4. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we are of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 3rd May 1990, which directed implementation of pay scales revised in case of Government servants for the similarly placed employees in public sector undertakings, leaves no scope for the argument now being raised on behalf of the appellant. The pay scales of government employees for the posts in question were revised vide Govt. of India O.M. dated 31st July 1990 and the said revision would automatically be applicable in case of the respondents also, in view of the Supreme Court judgment. As a matter of fact several other Public Sector Undertakings are to said to have implemented the revision of pay scales.
5. We may also note here another fact pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that senior officers of the appellant had also sought the revision of pay on parity of revision of pay scales in the Govt. of India. On similar reasoning the same learned single Judge had allowed C.W.4178 of 1996 vide judgment dated 14th July 1998. The appellant has accepted and implemented the said judgment of the learned single Judge while in the case of respondents the appellant has chosen to file the present appeal. The suggestion is that the decision in C.W. 4178/86 concerns the officers who have really to take the decision regarding challenging a particular judgment before a higher court or accepting the same. Since the judgment in C.W.4178/86 suited the officers because their pay scales stood revised, they chose not to challenge the said judgment whereas in the case of respondents the judgment based on similar reasoning has been challenged. Without expressing any opinion on this aspect we are of the view that the appellant has no case and, therefore, this appeal is dismissed in limine.