Punjab-Haryana High Court
M.S. Bhardwaj vs Rural Electrification Corporation ... on 8 July, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991
Date of decision: 08.07.2013
M.S. Bhardwaj
....Petitioner
Versus
Rural Electrification Corporation Limited and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: - Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. P.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the revised pay of the petitioner along with special pay, deputation allowance, house rent and arrears of pay along with interest to the petitioner, which he was entitled to draw in his parent department.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was a regular employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') and was working as Accountant at the Headquarter of the Board at Singh Ravinder 2013.07.15 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991 Panchkula. In the year 1983, Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') intended to fill up the posts of Accountants and Accounts Officer. For this purpose, Corporation requested the Board to forward the names of suitable officers, who intended to join the Corporation on deputation. At that point of time, petitioner was SAS Accountant in the Board and submitted application for being sent on deputation to the Corporation. 'No Objection Certificate' was also issued by the competent authority of the Board for deputation. At that point of time, pay scale of the petitioner was ` 800-30-920-40-1080/1150-50- 1500 and his basic pay was ` 1300/- with effect from 1.1.1984 and ` 1350/- with effect from 1.1.1985. Petitioner was selected and appointment letter was issued along with the terms and conditions of the deputation wherein the pay scale in the Corporation at that point of time was ` 550-25-750-EB-30-900. There was also one stipulation in the terms and conditions of the deputation that it will be the option of the employee either to draw the pay and allowance of the post held by him in his parent department plus deputation allowances as admissible or to get his pay and allowances fixed in the pay scale for the post to which he was appointed in the Corporation. Petitioner joined the service of the Corporation on 28.6.1985 and submitted his option to draw his pay in the pay scale and allowances, which he was drawing as SAS Accountant in the Board i.e. his parent department and the option of the petitioner was accepted. Petitioner continued to draw the pay scale of his parent department, however, in pursuance of fourth pay commission's report Singh Ravinder 2013.07.15 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991 pay scales of employees of the State Government were revised and the pay scale of the petitioner admissible to him in his parent department was also revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Intimation to this effect was sent to the Corporation by the Board vide memo dated 24.9.1987 (Annexure P-5). Chief Project Manager of the Corporation at Chandigarh vide Annexure P-6 requested its Delhi office to send the revised pay slip with effect from 1.1.1986 of the petitioner in view of the revision of pay scale so that arrears of pay be paid to the petitioners. Reminders dated 21.9.1987 (Annexure P-7) and 8.4.1988 (Annexure P-8) were also sent to this effect. Vide Annexure P-11 Corporation intimated to the petitioner that the pay of the petitioner is being regulated as per the existing rules of the Corporation and the pay plus deputation allowance of the deputationist from the State Government/SEBs could not exceed the ceiling limit of ` 2250/- per month. In view of this, petitioner is not entitled to the benefits.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared and submitted written statement specifying that petitioner joined the service of the Corporation on deputation vide Annexure P-2 and he was clearly made aware of the terms and conditions applicable to the deputationists. It was also made clear that petitioner could either opt for the salary of his parent department or of the Corporation and petitioner opted for the salary of his parent department. Petitioner has been paid salary and allowances including the revised salary of his parent department, however, it was a condition precedent that in case the total emoluments Singh Ravinder 2013.07.15 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991 exceeds by the limit of ` 2250/-, then there shall be no deputation allowance. Since in view of the revised pay in his parent department revised emoluments of petitioner exceeded ` 2250/-, petitioner was not entitled to deputation allowance as per the terms and conditions of the Corporation applicable to deputationists. Petitioner with his open eyes and being a well educated man and an Accountant himself agreed to the terms and conditions of the Corporation at the time of joining on deputation. It is further submitted that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of deputation allowance. Petitioner made a request that on the terms and conditions of the Corporation, he be permanently absorbed in the Corporation. Petitioner was made aware about the non-payment of deputation allowance when his term was extended from 1989 to 1990 vide Annexure R-4. All the extensions have been done on the written requests of the petitioner and he is bound to abide by the terms and conditions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Relevant terms and conditions of deputationists annexed with Annexure P-2 read as under: -
"1. (i) While on foreign service Sh. M.S. Bhardwaj, SAS (Acctt) will have the option either to draw pay and allowances of the post held by him in his parent department plus the deputation allowance as admissible or to get his pay and allowances fixed in the post, to which he is appointed in the REC, in accordance with the Ministry of Finance O.M. No.10 Singh Ravinder 2013.07.15 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991 (24)/E.III/2/60 dated 4th May, 1961 as amended/applified from time to time. The pay fixed in the scale of the REC will also be subject to the orders issued by this Corporation on the subject from time to time.
(ii) He will be entitled for local conveyance viz. city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance etc. under the Rules of the foreign employer.
(iii) He will also be entitled to draw dearness allowance at the rates of the Central Government/foreign employer, according to, as he selects to draw pay of the post in foreign services."
Vide Annexure P-6, pay of the petitioner was fixed on revision of pay scales at ` 2767/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986, which exceeded limit of ` 2250/-. As such, petitioner was not entitled to deputation allowance. Vide Annexure P-9 it was also intimated that petitioner was entitled to pay scale of ` 2825/- plus ` 50/- special pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in view of the revision of pay in the parent department and ` 2900/- plus ` 50/- special pay w.e.f. 1.1.1987. Thereafter the petitioner will be entitled to increase in pay as per the annual increments. Petitioner was made clear as per Annexure P-10 that his ceiling has exceeded ` 2250/- so he was not entitled to deputation allowance since he is being paid salary as per the terms and conditions of the deputation. Admittedly, petitioner has accepted that he is not entitled to deputation allowance when his term was extended from 28.6.1989 to 27.6.1990. Since as per the terms and conditions, petitioner was entitled to maximum emoluments to the extent of ` 2250/- and the pay in the parent department exceeded, petitioner is Singh Ravinder 2013.07.15 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -6- Civil Writ Petition No.6273 of 1991 not entitled to deputation allowance. Furthermore, petitioner has not specified in the petition that for which period he has been paid less amount. It has been argued during the course of arguments that excess amount paid was already deducted from the petitioner's salary as per the terms and conditions of the deputation. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this should be refunded, is not sustainable nor this has been prayed in the petition. The act and conduct of the petitioner stops claiming the deputation allowance as he has accepted the terms and conditions of the deputation. Vide Annexure R-6 he consented that his term be extended without deputation allowance.
In view of this, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge July 08, 2013 R.S. Singh Ravinder 2013.07.15 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh