Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suman Chandra Halder & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 October, 2016
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
04.10.2016
83
b.r.
W.P. No. 20042(W) of 2016
Suman Chandra Halder & Ors.
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
Mr. Soumya Majumder,
Mr. Puspal Chakraborty,
....... For the petitioners.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta,
Mr. P. Khaitan,
Mr. Pratik Sanu
.........for the Respondent no.4.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Chakraborty, ........ for the Union of India.
In this writ petition challenge is thrown by the writ petitioners who are all working with the Airports Authority of India (for short AAI) to the proposal to reduce the pay protection granted to them by way of additional increments at the time of merger of the National Airports Authority (for short NAA) with the International Airports Authority of India (for short IAAI) for constituting the AAI.
Sri Soumya Majumder, learned Senior Counsel led by Sri Arunava Ghosh, learned Counsel argues that at the time of 2 constitution of the AAI by promulgating the AAI Act, 1994, the higher pay being already enjoyed by the employees of NAI were protected in comparison with their colleagues who joined from IAAI.
Sri Majumder further argues that the benefits which have been so long enjoyed by the writ petitioners is now being suddenly taken away by the respondents on the ground that such benefits violate the Department of Public Enterprises (for short DPE) guidelines.
On behalf of the respondents, Sri Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel appears and submits that the implementation of the revision of pay and recovery of overpaid amounts is under process.
Sri Sunil Kumar Chakraborty, learned Counsel, appears for the respondents-Union of India.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court grants an opportunity to the respondents to place their stand through affidavits.
3
Let Affidavit-in-Opposition be filed within a period of two weeks after the reopening of the Court after the long Puja Vacation of 2016; reply two weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention after the period granted to exchange affidavits is complete.
This Court is of the considered view that since the petitioners have continued to enjoy the benefits of pay protection for two decades, balance of convenience lies in issuing a direction upon the respondent/AAI not to give effect to the revised guidelines/orders impugned in this writ petition without the leave of this Court.
The petitioners are directed to put in the deficit Court fees, if any, by the 6th of October 2016.
( Subrata Talukdar,J)