Karnataka High Court
R Subramanian vs Bharatiya Reserve Bank on 1 October, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
ON THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.12985/2010 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI R. SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O.LATE K. RAMACHANDRA IYER
RESIDING AT 9, PASUMARTHI STREET,
II LANE, KODAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600 023. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. SUBRAMANIAN, PETITIONER - PARTY IN
PERSON)
AND:
BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK
NOTE MUDRAN PVT. LTD.,
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
NO.3 & 4, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE,
BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 029
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ARVIND MOORCHUNG FOR SRI T.S. SURESH,
KING AND PARTRIDGE, ADV.)
******
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
2
30TH JANUARY, 2009 VIDE ANNEXURE S TO THE WRIT
PETITION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTING
THE LAWFUL CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONER TO PAY
THE ARREARS ON ACCOUNT OF PAY REVISION AND
ALSO THE PROPORTIONATE PERFORMANCE LINKED
REWARD FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 UNDER THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed on Contract Basis by the respondent with effect from 5th January 2006. The terms and conditions of the contract are enumerated by the letter dated 23.11.2005 vide Annexure-B. The terms and conditions were accepted. He completed his tenure. By the letter dated 09.01.2008, he was informed that two years contract period concludes on 04.01.2008 and accordingly he was relieved from service.
2. In view of the Revision of pay scales to the Central Government employees, the petitioner has sought for revision of his pay scale and sought for arrears of the same. Correspondences were exchanged 3 between the petitioner and the respondent. Ultimately, vide letter dated 30.1.2009 - Annexure-S, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Sri R. Subramanian, petitioner - party-in- person, contends that the revision of pay scale is applicable to him also, even though he was appointed on contract basis. His contention is that similarly placed persons namely other employees of the respondent - employer, who were appointed on contract basis were offered the revision of pay scale, namely one Lt.Col.M. Kumar. Therefore, when similarly placed employees were offered the revised pay scale, he too must be extended the same benefit. His second contention is that he is entitled for "Performance linked Reward" for the year 2007-08. No doubt, such a reward has been offered by the respondent to the similarly placed employees, but the same is granted to those employees who were on the rolls on 13th August 2008. He therefore, pleads that the effective date is erroneous. 4
4. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Moorchung, learned counsel appearing for the respondent defends the impugned action. He contends that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and governed by the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. The question of revision of pay scale would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. The reference to the similarly placed person, is ill founded. Lt. Col. M. Kumar, cannot be said to be a similarly placed employee, inasmuch as the revision of pay scale was extended to him only because he was since absorbed by the respondent. Therefore, the comparison is ill- founded. Both these persons cannot said to constitute a same class. The petitioner is a person governed under contract, whose contract has come to an end. In the case of the Lt. Col. M. Kumar, he was absorbed by the respondent and therefore, offered a revised pay scale. Hence, it cannot be said to be one and the same. 5
5. In so far as the Performance Linked Reward is concerned, it is submitted that the effective date of the implementation, has been fixed in view of the audited accounts being completed and the Board of Directors thereafter convening a meeting to take such a decision. That is why, the effective date is 13.08.2008. Therefore, he pleads that there is no arbitrariness or malafide that can be alleged against the respondent. Hence, he pleads that the second contention may also be rejected.
6. Heard the petitioner - party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The respondent in his statement of objections has admitted to the fact of a contractual appointment of Lt.Col. M. Kumar. He was also appointed on contract basis and on the very same scale of pay namely Rs.13200 - 400 - 18000/- as that of the petitioner. The appointment was in the year 2003. The appointment of the petitioner was in the year 2006. Subsequently, Lt. Col. M. Kumar was absorbed into regular service. On 6 such absorption, the revised pay scales were made applicable to him and were paid to him from 1.1.2006, namely the effective date of implementation of the revised pay scale upto the date of absorption. The plea is therefore that the revised pay scales were granted because he was absorbed into service.
8. The question herein is not whether Lt.Col. M. Kumar was absorbed rightly or wrongly or whether the petitioner was not absorbed rightly or wrongly. The questions for consideration are that when the revised pay scale is granted to an employee who was on contract basis only because he was subsequently absorbed, whether such a benefit has been wrongly denied to the petitioner - contract employee, only because he was not absorbed? Whether absorption can be a criterion, to determine the grant of revised pay scales or not?
9. The distinction made by the respondent between the contract employees who have completed 7 their period and contract employees who have been absorbed cannot be accepted. There cannot be two classifications of the same class of people. Therefore, the petitioner and Lt.Col. M. Kumar would have to be reckoned as persons belonging to the same class for the period of contract.
10. What is sought to be contended is that the revised pay scale is offered to Lt.Col.M.Kumar, since he was absorbed into service. Therefore it is pleaded that the persons who have not been absorbed and the persons who have been absorbed constitute different class of persons. The question of absorption of Lt.Col.M.Kumar or the non-absorption of the petitioner is not the subject matter of this petition. The distinction is arbitrary. It is un-reasonable to hold that, only because he is absorbed he is entitled to the revised pay scale. The distinction sought to be made by the respondents only on the ground of absorption is therefore unsustainable. Lt.Co.M.Kumar, has received the pay scale for the period under which he was in 8 contract. Therefore, the petitioner who was also on contract is entitled to the revised pay scale as has been given to Lt.Col.Kumar. The denial of such a benefit to the petitioner and the grant of this benefit to Lt.Col.Kumar is arbitrary. It is unsustainable. It is violative of Article 14.
11. Therefore, when the persons under contract have been extended the benefit of pay scales, the petitioner too would be entitled for the benefit of such revised pay scale. The denial of the revised pay scale to the petitioner is a violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, it is just and appropriate to direct the respondent to grant the revised pay scale to him with effect from 5.1.2006 namely from the date of his appointment till the date of expiry of the contract namely 4.1.2008.
12. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that when the respondent would grant the petitioner the same revised pay scale, in terms 9 of quantification, it would not be similar to that of Lt.Col. M. Kumar, in view of the fact that he was appointed much earlier. The petitioner has no dispute with regard to the same. But, however what needs to be clarified is that the applicability of the revised pay scale as extended to Lt. Col. M. Kumar, should be extended to the petitioner for the relevant period of time in the same proportion as has been granted to Lt.Col. M. Kumar. The corresponding scale of pay that has been granted to Lt.Col. M. Kumar would necessarily have to be granted to the petitioner also for the relevant period.
13. So far as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner contends that he is entitled for Performance linked Reward for the year 2007-08. The Performance linked Reward has been made effective for all those employees who are on the rolls on 13.08.2008. The petitioner completed his tenure on 4.1.2008. However, the respondent contends that he is not entitled for any of this amount.
10
14. Admittedly, the 'Performance linked Reward' is granted to the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 10.7.2007 which narrates that all persons on contract as on 29.6.2007 would be entitled for the relief. Admittedly, he was on the rolls as on 29.06.2007. Therefore, his entitlement upto 1.4.2007 was granted to him. However, between 1.4.2007 and 4.1.2008, no amount was granted to him, in view of the letter to the effect that he was not in service as on 13.8.2008. Hence, I'am unable to accept the said contention. Admittedly, he was on the rolls and contributed for production upto 4.1.2008.
15. Only because the Board was convened on a subsequent date, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. That the Board has been convened after the financial accounts have been audited. Material is placed before this Court to show that for the previous year the Board assembled in the month of July and the benefit was granted to those persons who are on the Rolls as on 11 July. For the year in question the Board met in August and therefore the relief is granted for those on the Rolls on 13-8-2008. Hence, it cannot be said that the date of reckoning is arbitrary or affects the legal rights of the petitioner. I find no error in fixation of the date by the respondent.
16. However, in view of the fact that large number of employees receive such benefit, since the financial year ends on 31st March of each year it can only be just, appropriate and advisable that the respondents consider to make the effective grant of such a relief with effect from 1st April of every year. That would result in equation of the relevant dates and would leave no scope for ambiguity. The effective date varying from month to month and every year could be avoided. Even if the Board meets in the month of July or August, the effective date could still be 1st of April of each year. 12
17. Having held so, the petitioner was on the rolls up-to 4-1-2008, therefore he contributed for production up-to 4-1-2008. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled for this relief. Infact he is. Therefore, only because he was not on the rolls on 13-8-2008, relief has been denied to him. The same is unjust. Therefore I'am of the considered view that he is entitled for the said relief up-to 4-1-2008. The amounts were due to the petitioner since January 2008. It was his legal entitlement.
18. Having held that the petitioner is entitled for this payment, it is just and necessary that the amount should carry appropriate interest. In the circumstances, I'am of the considered view that the amount payable in terms of the difference of pay by applying the revised pay scale should carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from January 2008 till the date of payment which shall be paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Further, the 13 performance linked reward is to be paid to the petitioner upto 4.1.2008. Therefore, interest would be payable on this amount also at 9% p.a. from January 2008 till the date of payment which shall be within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
19. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.1.2009 vide Annexure-S is hereby quashed. The respondent to make the payment to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid directions. Further, the respondent to make payment with regard to the 'Performance Linked Reward' to the petitioner from 1.4.2007 to 4.1.2008 with interest as stated hereinabove. Rule made absolute.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL