Telangana High Court
K. N. Srinivas Rao, vs Transmission Corporation Of Telangana ... on 4 October, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.6840 OF 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 dated 23.02.2016 vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(HR)/AS(S-
1)/PO(ES)/JPO/D.No.1100-3/14, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and sought consequential direction to the respondents not to reduce the pay scales of the petitioners.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The Petitioners in this writ petition were employees of erstwhile M/s. Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, a Government of Andhra Pradesh undertaking, and the said company became sick within the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the same was referred to BIFR vide Case No.631 of 1992. The State Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.384, Industries & Commerce Department, dated 31.03.1993, prescribing the modalities for development of 1486 surplus employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited in various Government Departments and State Level Public Enterprises.
Pursuant to the same, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.180 dated 28.04.1993 allotting 1486 surplus employees to various Government Departments, Public Sector JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 2 Undertakings (PSUs), and Autonomous Bodies by creating supernumerary posts for redeployment. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners and the surplus employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited were redeployed to the erstwhile APSEB in supernumerary posts and they were continued in the same pay scales and in the very same posts. The State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 24.03.2003 formulating special scheme for the redeployed employees of erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was decided that the redeployed employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited have become part and parcel of the Government Departments and PSUs and they were allotted and continue to work either against the supernumerary posts or temporary posts and they were directed to be continued as special class employees, but not Government servants. The Government issued another G.O.Ms.No.337 dated 17.11.2003 formulating necessary guidelines relating to pay scales of the redeployed employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited. AP TRANSCO, successor of APSEB, issued proceedings in TOO(CGM/HRD&TRG-PER) Rt.No.410, dated 28.03.2008 regularizing three redeployed JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 3 employees of the erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited against the supernumerary posts of Junior Executives and paid allowances, promotions, security and other service benefits will be governed by G.O.Ms.Nos.87 and 337 dated 24.03.2003 and 17.11.2003 respectively issued by the State Government. AP TRANSCO issued another proceedings dated 03.10.2008 setting out the modalities of pay fixation of the redeployed employees and it is further clarified that the pay fixation shall be fixed from the date of their joining in erstwhile APSEB with Revised Pay Scales 1993 and Revised Pay Scales 1999 with effect from 01.07.1998 and they shall be placed at appropriate stage in the corresponding existing pay scales of APSEB with effect from 01.04.1999 allowing them Revised Pay Scales of AP TRANSCO of 2002 and 2006.
2.1. The State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 26.02.2009 for regularization of services of erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited redeployed employees into Government Departments, by allowing seniority, considering the qualification and eligibility for holding the respective equivalent post in the Departments on par with the regular employees with all consequential benefits from the date of their redeployment.
JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 4 Pursuant to the said G.O., redeployed employees' services were absorbed with effect from 03.05.1993 in their respective Departments/PSUs. Pursuant to the same, AP TRANSCO had issued proceedings No.TOO (PER-CGM/HR & TRG) Ms.No.114 dated 02.09.2009 with reference to the petitioners and three other similarly situated persons specifying the date of their joining in the erstwhile APSEB in the posts in which they will be utilized, wherein it is stated that the pay fixation shall be as per erstwhile APSEB/AP TRANSCO and further held that the Junior Executives with B.E./B.Tech. (Electrical) shall be considered against the regular posts of AE (Electrical) and those who are having B.E./B.Tech. (Mech.) shall be considered against the post of AE (Civil) in the pay scales of AE. The petitioners have been working as redeployed employees into APSEB from 14.07.1993 and possessed B.E. (Mech.) qualification and they were absorbed in the regular posts of AE (Civil) with effect from their date of joining in APSEB. The AP TRANSCO issued proceedings fixing the pay scales of the petitioners from 14.07.1993 by giving due protection to their pay as per Revised Pay Scale 1993 and allowed their pay subsequent to pay revision benefits of APSEB for the years 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006 to 2010.
JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 5 2.2. The Joint Action Committee of Engineers, Accounts and P & G Employees Association submitted representation to the respondent Corporation that the petitioners are getting more salary than the original employees of TRANSCO and requested the management to pay salary on par with the petitioners. At that stage, respondent Corporation noticed that there was an error in granting RPS 1994 for the period from 01.07.1990 to 01.07.1992 to which the petitioners were not entitled. To examine the entire issue, respondent Corporation issued Orders dated 30.11.2011 constituting Committee to resolve the grievance of the employees of the above said Association. The said Committee after conducting enquiry submitted report dated 08.05.2014 holding that there is an error in fixation of pay of the redeployed employees of erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and hence the same has to be refixed.
2.3. Basing on the above report, respondent Corporation issued notice directing the petitioners to submit their objections as to why their pay should not be refixed and why a separate committee should not be constituted. The petitioners have submitted detailed objections dated. 24.10.2011 with regard to formation of the Committee and sought for hearing. Without JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 6 giving opportunity to the petitioners, hearing the parties and without furnishing report/documents as sought by the petitioners, respondent no.1 passed impugned Memo No.CGM (HRD/GM(HR)/AS(S-1)PO(ES)/JPO, D.No..110-3/14 dated 23.02.2016 refixing the pay scales of the petitioners and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Respondent No.3 filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 denying the allegations made by the petitioners, inter alia contended that the respondent Corporation, immediately after knowing about error in fixing redeployed Alwyn employees, constituted a committee vide T.O.O.Ms.No.316, dated 30.11.2011 to look into the grievances of the employees. The Committee comprised of experts in the field of TRANSCO. After conducting detailed enquiry and after examining the issue, the said Committee submitted a detailed report incorporating the recommendations vide Memo dated 08.05.2014. Pursuant to the same, respondent Corporation issued a notice directing the petitioners to submit their grievance why their pay should not be revised. The petitioners submitted their representations dated 20.09.2014 and 02.07.2015 and respondent No.1, after considering the representations of the petitioners and also JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 7 verifying entire records, passed impugned Memo dated 23.02.2016 by giving reasons rectifying the erroneous fixation of pay of the petitioners and the same is in accordance with law. It is further stated that the respondent Corporation is having power to re-fix the pay by correcting the mistake that had crept as per the Regulation 10(14), 31, 39(1), 42 and 44 of APSEB SRs Part-I, as adopted by TS TRANSCO, and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 passed by respondent No.1.
4. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, and Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. K. V. Rajasree, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that respondent Corporation constituted a Committee to examine the grievance of the Joint Action Committee relating to pay fixation of the redeployed employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited through orders dated 30.11.2011, though the petitioners have objected for formation of the Committee through letter dated 24.10.2011. Basing on the report dated 08.05.2013 JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 8 submitted by the said Committee, respondent No.1 issued impugned Memo dated 08.05.2014 alleging that there is an error in fixation of pay of the redeployed employees of erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited. The respondent Corporation has not given any notice before constituting the Committee nor given an opportunity to the petitioners. Basing on the report of the Committee, the respondent No.1 issued Memo dated 08.05.2014 directing the petitioners to submit their objections. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted detailed objections on 07.07.2014, but without considering the objections and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, passed the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 revising the pay fixation of the petitioners and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law.
5.1. He further contended that respondent Corporation constituted the Committee and the composition of the said Committee is also unfair and opposed to the interest of the petitioners, as all the Members of the Committee including its Chairman and the Members which formed the Joint Action Committee and which have submitted representation complaining against the pay fixation of the petitioners. Such JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 9 composition of Committee is in violation of the principles of natural justice, especially they are biased and there is no regulation to constitute the Committee. In the absence of any such regulation, the respondent Corporation constituted the Committee and basing on the report submitted by the said Committee, respondent No.1 passed impugned order and revised the pay fixation of the petitioners and the same is clear violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioners are surplus employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and the State Government allotted the petitioners herein to the erstwhile APSEB and they have joined in the service on 14.07.1993 as Junior Executives in supernumerary posts, which did not exist in the erstwhile APSEB, and at the time of their joining, the State Government has revised the pay scales of the employees with effect from 01.07.1992, which was applicable to M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited. After their joining, once again pay scales were revised in the year 1994 with effect from 01.07.1994. He further contented that employees of TRANSCO made an application that the employees, who redeployed in the APSEB, are getting more JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 10 salary than that drawn by the employees of TRANSCO and requested the respondent Corporation to pay the salary on par with the juniors i.e., petitioners. At that point of time, the respondent Corporation noticed that there was an error in granting Revised Pay Scale (RPS) 1994 for the period from 01.07.1990 to 01.07.1992 to which petitioners not entitled. Immediately, the respondent Corporation constituted the Committee through proceedings dated 30.11.2011 to look into the grievance of the employees and directed to submit report. The Committee after conducting detailed inquiry and due verification of the records submitted a report stating that the respondent Corporation erroneously granted RPS 1994 to the petitioners, though they are not entitled to the same. Respondent Corporation issued show-cause notice to the petitioners directing the petitioners to submit their objections and after considering their objections, respondent No.1 passed impugned proceedings.
6.1. He further contented that respondent Corporation constituted the Committee in the interest of the employees of the Corporation as well as to ascertain whether the regular employees of APSEB entitled the same pay on par with the JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 11 petitioners or there is any error in granting RPS 1994 in favour of the petitioners and whether the same is permissible under law. The Committee after conducting enquiry submitted report. Respondent Corporation issued notice to the petitioners and furnished the copy of the report submitted by the Committee and after considering the objections, respondent No.1 passed impugned order and there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, the following points arise for consideration:
i). Whether the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 passed by respondent No.1 reducing pay scales of the petitioners is valid under law, especially basing upon the report dated
08.05.2014 submitted by the Committee?
ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief in the writ petition?
POINTS i and ii :
8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are employees of erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited. After closure of the JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 12 said Company, the State Government has allotted surplus employees to various Government Departments, PSUs and autonomous bodies by creating supernumerary posts.
Accordingly, the petitioners were allotted to erstwhile APSEB and they have joined in service on 14.07.1993 as Junior Executives in supernumerary posts. It is also an admitted fact that the State Government has revised the pay scales of employees of APSEB with effect from 01.07.1992 which is applicable to M/s. Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and the revision period being 01.01.1986 to 01.07.1992. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have availed the said benefit up to 1992. After joining in erstwhile APSEB, the Government announced revised pay scales, 1994, with effect from 01.07.1994. It further reveals that the employees of the TRANSCO made a representation to Joint Action Committee and in turn they complained to the respondent Corporation that the petitioners, who are redeployed from M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and who are juniors, are drawing more salary and requested to extend the very same benefit to them. After receiving the said representation, the respondent Corporation constituted a Committee through order dated 30.11.2011 comprised of experts in the field of TRANSCO i.e., JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 13 Joint Secretary, Deputy Chief Controller of Accounts (R & T), Assistant Secretary (Personnel) and Assistant Secretary (Establishment) and directed them to submit a report. The said Committee after due verification of the records and after conducting enquiry submitted report stating that there is an error in fixation of pay of the redeployed employees of erstwhile M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and hence the same has to be refixed.
9. It appears from the record that on 08.05.2014, the respondent Corporation issued memo calling for objections, if any, with regard to the recommendations of the Committee by enclosing copy of the above said report. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have submitted representation dated 20.09.2014 and 02.07.2015 and after examining the same, respondent No.1 passed impugned order dated 23.02.2016, wherein it is stated that the petitioners, who are surplus employees of M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, redeployed as Junior Executives in the supernumerary posts and subsequently their services were regularized duly abolishing supernumerary posts and the respondent Corporation fixed the pay fixation along with monetary benefits i.e., D.A. and fitment on par with the regular JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 14 employees of APSEB and paid monetary benefits and respondent Corporation erroneously extended Revised Pay Scale 1994 to the petitioners for the period from 01.07.1992 to 01.07.1994, though they are not eligible and the said mistake was continued till 2014 and to avoid erroneous pay and to maintain parity between the existing employees i.e., APSEB/ TRANSCO employees and redeployed employees from M/s.Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, passed the impugned orders especially after following the due process by issuing notice and furnishing the report submitted by the Committee to the petitioners.
10. It is very much relevant to mention here that petitioners have not even questioned the constitution of the Committee by the respondent Corporation nor the report submitted by the said Committee. Respondent No.1, after considering the objections submitted by the petitioners and after following the principles of natural justice, passed the impugned order. Viewed from any angle, there is no illegality, irregularity or error in the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 passed by respondent No.1 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Points Nos.i and ii are answered, JSR, J W.P.No.6480 of 2016 15 accordingly.
11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.
12. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, interlocutory applications if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date : 04.10.2023 mar