Karnataka High Court
B N Sreenivasa S/O Nagaraja vs The Executive Director on 20 July, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO. 9134/2011 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS. 22715-718/2011
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS. 46609-638/2011
IN WP NO. 9134/2011
BETWEEN:
B.N. SREENIVASA,
S/O NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
QA & TQM DEPARTMENT,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(SRI. B.N. SREENIVASA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO EXTEND THE PERQUISITES AND
ALLOWANCES AND ALSO PRP APPLICABLE TO EO ORIGINAL
GRADE W.E.F. 5.10.2009 AS PER THE SCHEMES AND THE
SETTLEMENTS AND ETC.
IN WP NOs. 22715-718/2011
BETWEEN:
1. B.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O B.R. NAGABHUSHANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
MARKETING DIVISION,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
2. S.K. SUMA,
D/O S. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
O/O DGM-REFRACTORY & FOUNDRIES,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
3. B.S. VIJAYA KUMAR,
S/O GOVINDA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
O/O AGM-PERS. (OD & HRD),
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
4. SHAFI UR REHAMAN,
S/O ABDUL SUBHAN,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
O/O TOWN ADMN., DEPARTMENT,
3
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.B. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.,
VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE
CASES OF THE PETITIONERS AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITINERS DATED 15.02.2010,
01.03.2010 AND 19.04.2010 MARKED AT ANNEX.N, P AND Q.
AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXTEND ALL
THE BENEFITS AS STATED IN THE OFFICE ORDER DATED
29.12.2009 MARKED AT ANNEX.M, AND PERFORMANCE
RELATED PAY AS PER THE SCHEME DATED 11.08.2010
MARKED AT ANNEX.R ALONG WITH ARREARS AND ALL
OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
IN WP NOs. 46609-638/2011
BETWEEN:
1. THIMME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
R/AT DC 3/B,
OFFICERS QUARTERS,
NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
4
2. R. MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O P. ANGAPPA,
R/AT "SRILAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA",
6TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, (RIGHT SIDE),
SHANKARA MUTT ROAD,
SIDDAROODA NAGAR,
BHADRAVATI - 577 303.
3. B.V. RUDRASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O B.M. VEERABHADRAIAH,
R/AT GIC I-D, NEW TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
4. MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O MARIYAPPA K.,
R/AT SRI NAGA NILAYA,
BYPASS CIRCLE,
HIRESIDDAPURA,
SIDDAPURA POST,
BHADRAVATI TALUK.
5. K. HANUMANTHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O K. RAMA RAO,
R/AT DWC/138/B,
HUTHA COLONY,
NEAR CHANDRALAYA,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
6. R.R. GAEKWAD,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNOJI RAO,
R/AT SREEDEVI NILAYA,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
7. ANUSUYA S.B.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O G.C. YETTINAHALLI,
R/AT SK-6, NEW TOWN,
NEAR VISL HOSPITAL,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
8. S. SHARADA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O SATYANARAYANA SETTY,
5
R/AT SK-28, NEW TOWN,
NEAR VISL HOSPITAL,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
9. M.R. TARA BAI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O MOHAN KUMAR,
R/AT NEELA VARNASHRAYA,
2ND CROSS, UPPER HUTHA,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
10. SUGANDI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O PURUSHOTHAMA H.D.,
R/AT G-49, NEW TOWN,
BEHIND GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
11. SUMITRA M. PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O H.N. MANJUNATHA,
R/AT IDK-95, NEW TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
12. N.V. GOWRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O A. RUDRAPPA,
R/AT MDK-35/B, NEW TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
13. MERCELLINE VEIGAS,
AGED BOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O WALTER LAWRENCE PINTO,
R/AT IDK-49, NEW COLONY,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
14. VIJAYA V. PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
C/O ANANDA V. PRABHU,
R/AT NWC 270/B,
GANESH COLONY, NEW TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
15. G. SUSHEELAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O D. MARTIS, R/AT CORAL,
K.C.LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
6
16. B.H. SHAKUNTALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O H.P. PUTTANANJUNDAPPA,
R/AT H-16, RCC,
NEAR SAI BABA SCHOOL,
NEW TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
17. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O DORISWAMY V.,
R/AT NO. IDK-50/B,
HUTHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
18. NAGARAJA R.,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O H.N. RAMA RAO,
R/AT RAJASHREE,
BEHIND NTB LIBRARY,
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
19. BEVINAHALLI K.M.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O MALLAPA BEVINAHALLI,
R/AT HOUSE NO. G-12,
BEHIND GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
20. GAYITRI B,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O S. SEETARAMAIAH,
R/AT SHARADASREE, 3RD CROSS,
5TH MAIN, SIDDAROODA NAGARA,
NEW BRIDGE ROAD, OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
21. BASAVARAJAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O MALLESHAPPA KERWADI,
R/AT IDK-72/B, HUTHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
22. V. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O R. NAGARAJA,
R/AT "RAJASHREE",
OPP. MALLESHWARA SAMUDAYA BHAVANA,
7
JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
23. PETER JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O M.F. JOHN,
R/AT ROSA MYSTICA,
GANDHI NAGAR CHURCH ROAD,
KANNAPPA LAYOUT, OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
24. A.S. GEETHAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O KRISHNA RAO,
R/AT NO.40, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 019.
25. NAVANEETHAM,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O MUNIRATHNA MUDALIAR,
R/AT NWC-279/A,
GANESHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
26. BALARAJ B.H.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O HONNAIAH GOWDA B.M.,
R/AT NO. GIC-10/D,
GANESHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
27. S. UMAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O M. SIDDOJI RAO,
R/AT NMC 3RD CROSS, (RIGHT SIDE)
OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
28. A. BASHAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL MAJEED,
R/AT 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
NEAR VSI HOSPITAL,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
29. N.G. ANANDA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O GANGAPPA K.
8
R/AT NWS-271/AB,
GANESHA COLONY,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
30. RAJU M.K.,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
R/AT SAPTHAGIRI NIVASA,
3RD CROSS, VISVESVARAYA LAYOUT,
SIDDAROODA NAGAR, OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR - PERSONNEL,
ISPAT BHAVAN,
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (P&A),
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED,
VISVESVARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT,
BHADRAVATI - 577 301.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXTEND THE BENEFITS OF
PERKS/ALLOWANCES AND PRP BENEFITS AS APPLICABLE
TO THE EXECUTIVES FROM 5.10.09 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 2(70)/08-DPE(WC)GT-
XVI/08 DATED 26.11.08 VIDE ANNX-A AND OFFICE
MEMORANDUM NO. 2(79)/08-DPE(WC)GT-VII/09 DATED
02.04.09 VIDE ANNX-B ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES NEW
DELHI AND AS PER THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 21.11.09
VIDE ANNX-C ISSUED BY THE R2.
9
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND LISTED
FOR DICTATING ORDERS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions, who are the employees of the Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the SAIL' for brevity) have preferred these writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to extend the perquisites and allowance and also Personal Regular Promotion ('PRP' for short) applicable to Executive Officer Original grade and also to grant all consequential and monetary benefits from the date of implementation of revised perquisites and allowances and PRP., with effect from 05.10.2009, as per the Office Order bearing No. PER/EC/1213/07/P&A dated 29.12.2009 as at Annexure-H.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that:
The petitioner in W.P.No.9134/2011 was appointed as 'Stenographer' in A-2 grade on 10 02.04.1977. The Visvesvaraya Iron & Steel Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'VISL' for brevity), vide Memo No. CAO/PL/ST/383 dated 13.10.1989, as at Annexure-A, with a view to avoid stagnation and feeling of frustration amongst the employees in the non-executive cadre on account of remote chances of their promotion over 10 years, had decided to introduce a promotion scheme called as 'stagnation promotion scheme' entitling the employees who have put in more than 10 years of service in the same cadre for promotion to the next higher grade treating the same as 'personal grade placement' with effect from 01.10.1980. Thereafter, the employees would become eligible for personal grades placement as and when they completed 10 years, subject to other conditions mentioned therein. By virtue of another memo No.CAO/404/83-84 dated 25.11.1983 as at Annexure-B, in modification of the earlier scheme as at Annexure-A, the 'VISL' agreed to promote an S8/A3 grade employee to that of Executive E1 grade as personal grade by discontinuing the existing 11 practice of promoting the M3/M2 grade employees to M1 grade. According to petitioners, Clause 2(a) (b) of the said modified scheme and that clause '9' of the original scheme is relevant for the petitioner's case.
By virtue of the said memo, the 'VISL' has agreed to promote M3/M2 S8/A3 grade employees to Executive E1 grade as personal grade instead of promoting them to M1 grade.
There was another settlement dated 29.10.1991 between the management of 'VISL' and the Workers' Association introducing A-4 and S-9 new higher executive grades in 'Y' and 'C' cluster. In the said settlement it was agreed to discontinue PG E-1 grade and as per clause-7 it was resolved to introduce EO Executive grade as entry grade in Executive Category and the employees who have completed 10 years in L- 8/A3 grade and L-9/A-4 regular grades were promoted to EO grade as personal grade. Since the petitioner has completed 10 years of service, vide office order bearing No. CPM/26/2001-02 dated 12 02.05.2002, he was promoted to EO grade as personal grade with effect from 01.05.2002 and he was being paid the pay and other benefits related/applicable to EO grade. Further, as per the office order dated 21.11.2009 as at Annexure-F, the 'SAIL', which took over the erstwhile 'VISL' has revised scales of pay in respect of the Executives with effect from 1.1.2007.
When the matter stood thus, the SAIL, vide Office Order No. PER/EC/1213/P&A dated 29.12.2009 as at Annexure-H, had agreed to pay revised Perquisites and other allowances for Executive under Cafeteria approach with effect from 05.10.2009. Clause 1.3 of the said order provides for payment of 46% revised basic pay to the Executive working for 48 hours or more and 44% to the Executives working for less than 48 hours. It is averred in the petition that as per clause-4, 6 & 9 of Memo dated 13.10.1980 (Annexure-A) and clause 5 of Memo dated 25.11.1983 (Annexure-B) the petitioner 13 is entitled for all the benefits as envisaged in those two memos and as the respondent-SAIL was reluctant to extend the said benefits to the petitioners, the petitioner has filed several representations to the respondent-SAIL as at Annexure-J, K & L respectively, which was kept in cool storage and no action was taken by the respondent-SAIL to set right the anomalies. As such, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petitions, seeking writ of mandamus, as stated supra.
3. The facts and grievance of the petitioners in other connected writ petitions are more or less similar to the petitioner in WP. No.9134/2011. Hence, to avoid repetition, the facts in WP.No.9134/2011 are taken as the common grievances of all the petitioners.
4. The petitioner in W.P.No. 9134/2011, who is party in person submits that at the time when he was promoted to EO personal grade, the management has extended all the benefits applicable to the EO 14 original grade and hence, the management should have extended the same benefits after revision of the pay scale, Perquisites and other allowances including PRP. Hence, the action of the management extending only basic plus DA and declining to pay the revised perquisites and allowance is contrary to the promotion policy/scheme.
5. He submitted that the action of the management in admitting the revised basic in EO grade and denial of Perquisites and allowances is against the terms and conditions of the periodical memos, office orders and also against the terms of memorandum of settlement and the same would adversely affect for determination of gratuity payable to him. When the promotion policy clearly empowers the management to pay the pay and allowances and other benefits applicable to the original grade employees-personal grade employees, denial of the said benefits would defeat the very purpose of the personal grade promotion policy and 15 the same would amount to violation of schemes and settlements announced from time to time and that the Management-SAIL cannot bifurcate the benefits entitled to the petitioner.
6. It is submitted that the 'Stagnation Promotion Policy' as envisaged in the memos produced at Annexure-A & B is still in operation and hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the revised perquisites and allowances that is applicable to EO original grade to the personal grade as well. The denial of the said benefits to the petitioners is totally contrary to law, and violative of Articles-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that when the petitioner has made several representations to the respondent-SAIL, there is a duty cast upon the management to take appropriate decision within the reasonable time. On these grounds, the petitioners pray for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider their representations. 16
7. Shri. K.B. Narayanaswamy learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in other connected cases, more or less, canvassed the same contentions as stated supra and prays for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent. In support of his contention, Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an un- reported order dated 30.05.2012, passed by the co- ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.47627/2011 to contend that mere non-providing of functional posts will not alter the posts of EO-PG grade to which the petitioner was promoted to be treated as non- executive grade and that if the EO-PG promotion was not beneficial to the petitioners, they could have refused to opt for the same and they could have remained in the same S-9 grade and that there was no compulsion or coercion whatsoever for the petitioner to accept such promotion and it was not the case of the petitioners that the promotion was thrust on them. He further submitted that when the employee who has been promoted to the post 17 from personal grade to EO cadre retires, his Gratuity is being calculated and paid on the basis of salary given in the EO grade and non-extension of the benefits given under the Office Order dated 29.12.2009 to the petitioners is discriminatory and that the entire action of the respondent is violative of Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution.
8. Per contra, Shri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, while reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections dated 13.04.2011 filed on behalf of the respondent-SAIL inter alia contended that though the management of erstwhile VISL had introduced promotion scheme vide memo dated 13.10.1980 for the employees who completed 10 years of service in the same grade, clause-9 of the said memo provided for payment of production bonus, incentive bonus, HRA and other benefits relating to Personal Grade and that clause 3(e) of memo dated 25.11.1983 under which, the employees who were given PG E1 grade were also eligible for 18 production bonus, incentive bonus, HRA and other benefits related to regular E1 grade and not to the PG E1 grade and that PG promotion to EO grade is not in existence in any other SAIL units and after taking over of the VISL by the SAIL, the practice of giving promotion from PG to PG EO has been discontinued. In view of the settlement dated 4.9.1983, the earlier memo dated 25.11.1983 (Annexure-B) was terminated and therefore, the allowances claimed by the petitioners cannot be extended to them. Though revision in the payment of perquisites and allowance for the executives was given effect from 05.10.2009 under 'Cafeteria Approach', the same was not extended to the employees who are in PG EO grade and hence, they are not entitled to claim the same, inasmuch as the same was terminated in the settlement dated 4.9.1983 as at Annexure-D) and that there was no specific clause to extend such benefit to the petitioner in Annexure-H. 19
9. He submitted that by virtue of the subsequent 'Performance Related Payment (PRP) for the executives, introduced by the SAIL with effect from 1.4.2007, the same would not be made applicable to the petitioners who are in PG EO grade working in workman cadre and a separate system has been evaluated to them. Hence, the claim of the petitioners for perquisites and allowance on par with the executives as per O.M. Dated 21.11.2009 as at Annexure-F is unsustainable. Since the original grade of the petitioner was S-9 of workman cadre, the petitioner cannot compare with the regular EO grade of executive nature, because the nature of work involved are entirely different.
10. He further submits that with a view to maintain parity with the system existing in other SAIL units, promotion to EO grade was discontinued with effect from 31.12.2003. Thus, the policy of granting personal grade promotion to EO grade was finally withdrawn by the SAIL. He submitted that by 20 virtue of office order dated 29.12.2009 revising perquisites and allowances w.e.f. 05.10.2009 the same was replaced with the earlier memos at annexure A and B and hence the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefits as per Annexure H.
11. While drawing the attention of the court to the additional statement of objection dated 19.06.2015 learned counsel for the respondent - SAIL submits that since the petitioner secured notional promotion from S9 to S10 and S11 grades in the non executive cadre, he is not entitled to claim the allowances. By virtue of official memorandum dated 09.02.2009 performance related pay is being calculated on the basis of performance of the executives and since the petitioner has not worked in the executive cadre his performance is assessed in the lower grade though he got notional promotion to EO personal grade. He further submits that though the petitioners were extended pay scale of EO personal grade from the date of their promotion, they 21 continued to work in the lower cadre and hence the allowance sought by them cannot be granted to them. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.) VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2002) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 333 to contend that in taking of a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. While it is expected of a responsible employer to take all aspects into consideration including welfare of the labour before taking any policy decision, that by itself will not entitle the employees to demand a right of hearing or consultation prior to the taking of the decision and that the above policy is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have 22 been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. On these amongst other grounds he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. The petitioner, who is representing his case as party in person has filed his rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the respondent, contending that the employee working in S-11 grade which is lower than EO Executive grade is getting more salary than the petitioner, even though he is junior to him. In support of his contention, he has produced the copy of arrears rolls of S-11 grade employee as at Annexure-P.
13. On consideration of the submission made by the respective parties it is clear that the erstwhile employer of the petitioner viz., Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Limited, Bhadravati had introduced a scheme called 'Stagnation Promotion Scheme' vide memo dated 13.10.1980 bearing No. CAO/PL/ST/383, with a view to avoid stagnation and feeling of frustration amongst its employees in the non-executive cadre on 23 account of remote chances of promotion over 10 years. By virtue of the said scheme employees were being given promotion to the next higher grade i.e., EO Personal grade which is equivalent to EO Regular grade. The clauses - 4, 6 and 9 of the said promotion schemes read thus:
"4. An employee who is so placed in the PG will continue to do the same work which he was doing in the previous lower grade (hereinafter referred to as PLG).
6. The placement in the Personal Grade will be done as per the existing rules of pay fixation on promotion.
9. Employees will be eligible for payment of Production Bonus, Incentive Bonus, House Rent Allowance and other benefits related to the Personal Grade".
14. The said Stagnation Promotion Scheme has been further modified vide memo dated 25.11.1983 bearing No. CAO/404/83-84. Under the 24 said memo, the existing promotion of the employees from M3/M2 grades to M1 grade was replaced to M3/M2 grades will get PG promotion to E-1 grade, w.e.f. 04.09.1983. Clause 2(a) and (b) of the said modified scheme reads as under:
(a) The present practice of giving PG promotion from M3/M2 Grades to M1 Grade will be discontinued with effect from 4th September 1983.
(b) The employees in M3/M2 grades will get PG promotion to E1 grade instead of the present practice of M-1 grade with effect from 4.9.1983 subject to other conditions laid down in Memo No. CAO/PL (ST)/383 dated 13.10.1980 along with modifications and further conditions specified in this memo".
15. Indisputably, the erstwhile VISL became subsidiary of SAIL with effect from 01.08.1989. After taking over of the management of erstwhile VISL, the SAIL had issued office order dated 29.12.2009 bearing No. PER/EC/1213/07/P&A, as at 25 Annexure-H where under, the 'Perquisites and Allowances' payable to executives of SAIL has been increased under Cafeteria Approach w.e.f. 05.10.2009. As per clause 1.3 of the said order, the admissible perquisites and other allowances to executives was increased as follows:
i) Executives working for 48 hours or more per week - Limited to 46% of revised basic pay.
ii) Executives working for less than 48 hours per week - Limited to 44% of revised basic pay.
16. The respondent - SAIL has categorically admitted in paragraph 8 of its statement of objection that the petitioner along with other 24 employees was extended EO grade as Personal Grade w.e.f. 01.05.2002 for having completed 10 years of satisfactory service in S8 and S9 grades. Further, in paragraph 14 they have admitted that the stagnated employees are being promoted to the executives E1 26 grade as per the scheme introduced as at Annexure- B.
17. As could be seen from the Memo dated 13.10.1980 as at Annexure-A, the object of introducing the promotional scheme i.e., 'Stagnation Promotion Scheme' was with a view to avoid stagnation and a feeling of frustration amongst the employees in the non-executive cadre on account of remote chances of their promotions over 10 years, the management has decided to introduce service linked promotion scheme. The same was further extended by another memo dated 25.11.1983 as at Annexure- B. The benefits formulated under the above two memos of erstwhile VISL is being extended to the employees of SAIL till the introduction of new scheme by the SAIL on 29.12.2009 vide Annexure-H. Admittedly the petitioners in these petitions who were the employees under the erstwhile VISL were given notional promotion to the next higher grade i.e., Executive Personal grade under the 'Stagnation 27 Promotion Scheme' to the next higher grade i.e., executives personal grade and they are being paid the pay and allowances applicable to the said higher grade (Executive grade), even though they used to work in their original non-executive personal grade. Denial of payment of revised perquisites and allowances to the petitioners by the respondent SAIL is nothing but discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but also against the object of the promotion policy/scheme formulated by the SAIL as at Annexure-A, B & H and thereby would defeat the very object of the promotional scheme introduced by the SAIL. It has not been made clear or explained as to why the petitioners are disentitled to receive the said allowances granted vide office order dated 29.12.2009 as at Annexure-H. The denial of benefits to the petitioners by the respondents is nothing but the colorable exercise of power and the same is held to be illegal.
28
18. On careful reading of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION cited supra it is seen that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, that was a case pertains to an economic policy decision of the Government of India. But the grievances of the petitioners in these writ petitions is in respect of extending the benefits i.e., payment of perquisites and allowances in pursuance to the pay revision made by the SAIL w.e.f. 05.10.2009 and the said decision cannot be equated to the policy decision of a government.
19. In view of the discussion made above all these writ petitions are entitled to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER These writ petitions are allowed.
The respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners in all these 29 petitions and to extend the benefit of admissible 'perquisites and allowances' and PRP applicable to EO original grade to the petitioners with effect from 05.10.2009 as per the office order dated 29.12.2009 bearing No. PER/EC/1213/07/P&A as at Annexure-
H, as expeditiously as possible but not later than the outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Insofar as the grievance of the petitioners as regards drawing less salary than their juniors, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh representation seeking to step up their pay on par with their juniors. If such representations are filed, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
At this state it is submitted at the Bar that some of the petitioners have already been retired from service. Hence, it is made clear that the petitioners who have already retired from service are also being 30 extended with the benefits admissible in terms of Annexure-H. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VR