Jharkhand High Court
Dvc Teachers Association Through Its ... vs The Damodar Valley Corporation Through ... on 9 September, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 2484 of 2013
DVC Teachers Association,
a registered Association having its
registration no. 170F/196970,
having its head office at Maithon Dam,
District Dhanbad through its Acting General
Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh son of
Late Anant Narayan Singh Vill. Jhumaritiliya, P.O.
Karma, P.S. Tilya, Distt. Koderma..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Damodar Valley Corporation, a
Corporation under the DVC Act
having its Head Office at DVC Tower,
VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. & Dist. Kolkata through
its Chairman.
2. The Director, Human Resources Development
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The State of Jharkhand. .................. ......Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondents : None.
6/9.09.2015 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents though counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.
Petitioner is the Association of D.V.C. Teachers, who seek rationalization of their pay scale and removal of disparity to bring them at par with central pay scale as applicable for Government Teachers and that of Kendriya Vidyalya Sangthan. Petitioner's representation made pursuant to observations made in W.P.(S) No. 6838 of 2002, has been rejected by an order dated 17th September, 2009 passed by Director (HRD) of RespondentCorporation impugned herein.
Petitioner contends that a number of schools are functioning under the RespondentCorporation of which the members of petitioner's Association are employees. The pay revision recommended by the Central Pay Commission was earlier decided to be adopted by the Corporation also and again in the 6th Pay Revision the RespondentCorporation was obliged to adopt the scales of pay as applicable to teachers in the Central Government and other schools of Kendriya Vidyalya Sangthan etc. 2. Because of a scale adopted by the RespondentCorporation a lot of disparity has resulted and even contractually engaged teacher are enjoying more salary than the permanent teachers in the schools of RespondentCorporation, Annexure12, is a comparative Chart in support thereof. It is submitted that such huge gap has also been taken note of in a report prepared by Shri Ram Centre For Industrial Relations, Human Resources, Economic & Social Development, Annexure11. Therefore, petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking implementation of Central Pay Revision in totality and on the liberty granted on the previous occasion they made a representation before the respondent which has been declined without proper consideration by the impugned order dated 17th September, 2009.
The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have taken a stand that D.V.C. being an autonomous body created under the Act of 1948 is entrusted with the work of flood control, generation, transaction and distribution of electricity, afforestation including upliftment of general conditions of the people in its command area. Accordingly, D.V.C. has opened a number of schools but being autonomous body it has its own pay structure which has been arrived at after discussion with the Trade Unions of Corporation and also teachers association. It is stated on their behalf that the pay scale arrived after discussion with the different Unions in respect of employees under the RespondentCorporation is not to be compared with the Central Pay Commission as the Corporation has its own factors to be taken into account for coming at a decision in the matters of pay fixation of his own employees. The respondents have also stated that the present association is not recognized by the respondent corporation. Therefore, the impugned order which takes into account the contention of the petitioner is well reasoned and does not require any interference.
3.
I have considered the relevant material on record as noted hereinabove and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled that independent entity like a Public Sector Undertaking or a government Company is independent to take its own decision in the matter of implementation of pay revision. The decision to implement the pay revision as recommended by such Central Pay Commission is dependent upon host of factors including the financial standing, progress of the Company etc. They are applied with modification tailored to the structural organization of PSU and its financial strength. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sureshchandra Singh and others vs. Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd and others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 592. Para 7 thereof is quoted hereunder:
"Para 7: The appellants assail the decision of the Board on the ground of violation of principles of equality. It is alleged that the Boardlevel employees were allowed to continue in service till the age of sixty and employees like the appellants who were below the Board level were forced to retire at the age of fifty eight. In reply the respondents submitted that the Boardlevel employees could not be equated and compared with the other employees. Wholetime directions, who are two in numbers, are directly appointed by the President of India for a fixed terms of five years that could be reviewed even earlier; and that other members of the Board are government servants and are nominees or representatives from various Ministries and are appointed by the President of India for a term of three years. In these circumstances we find that the Board of Directors themselves from a different class and cannot be compared with other employees in regard to conditions of service applicable to them. Allegation of discrimination is also raised by the appellants visavis employees of other corporation. Each public sector undertaking is an independent body/entity and is free to have its own service conditions as per law. However, all employees in FCIL who are working in its various units and divisions retire at the age of fiftyeight as per the relevant rules; and that even the future employees will retire at the age of fiftyeight. We also find that the employees of different corporations could not be treated alike since every corporation will have to take into account its separate circumstances so as to formulate its policy and consequently, the argument that there is discrimination of appellants visavis employees of other corporations also cannot be accepted. Thus, the appellants have failed on all grounds. The appeals stand dismissed."
Reliance may also be placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment rendered in the case of Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. vs. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L. and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490. 4. From perusal of the reasoned order and also from the stand of the respondents, it appears that the RespondentD.V.C had earlier adopted the formula of Central Pay Commission in the year 1986. Prior to that the pay scale and D.A. patterns of D.V.C employees were quite different to that of Government of India pattern. It is not in dispute that the pay and emoluments of D.V.C employees was higher in comparison to the employees working under public sector and Central Government undertaking before 1986. However, while considering the implementation of Central Pay Scale with effect from 1st January, 1996 or even with effect from 1st January, 2006, the respondent corporation has undertaken consultation with all Trade Unions and all efforts were made to bring parity in the pay scale. The present pay scale has been arrived at only after such discussion and accepted by large number of employees. It is also their cases that if any separate pay scale as demanded by the present association is accepted it will create a massive industrial relation problem amongst all other categories of employees which will not be possible to accede.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and reasons contained in the impugned order, this court is also of the view that the claim of parity of pay scale by the petitionerassociation at par with teachers of other government school or that of K.V.S is not justified in the eye of law. So far as comparison of remuneration of permanent teachers to that of contractual teachers under the corporation are concerned, that also cannot be sole factor in the matter of revision in pay scale, as it is beyond cavil that permanent teachers enjoy a different security of tenure and service conditions compared to the contractual teachers.
Therefore, this court is not satisfied that the relief, as prayed for, can be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) jk