Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Rama Murthy And Others vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, ... on 23 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD394, 1999(2)ALT375
ORDER
1. The petitioners who were promoted to the 'A' Grade Officer cadre from Senior 'A' Grade workmen cadre filed this writ petition seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefits under long term settlement or in the alternative to rectify the anamolies in the pay structure between the petitioners and their juniors and for payment of difference in emoluments.
2. It emerges from the affidavit of one of the petitioners which is filed in support of the petition that they were in the cadre of Senior 'A' Grade Workmen in the Refinery Division at Visakhapatnam and promoted in November, 1983 to 'A' Grade Officer cadre and their pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 1050-50-1750/60-2110. There was a long term settlement between the Union of workers and 2nd respondent which was made effective from 1-1 -1984 and the workers were provided with higher basic pay by merger of a portion of D.A. and the basic pay and pay scales were accordingly revised. Consequently the pay scales of all the workmen who were promoted on and from 1-1-1984 alone were given the benefit of new pay scales; whereas the salaries of the petitioners who were promoted with effect from 15-11-1983 i.e., 45 days earlier to 1-1-1984 were denied that benefit. The result is that 'A' grade workmen drawing a salary of Rs.1,460/- when promoted on 15-11-1983 to supervisory cadre 'A' gets a fitment of Rs. 1,5007- only whereas a junior 'A' grade workman drawing a salary of Rs.1,420/- if promoted from 1-1-1984 gains an increase of Rs.300/-. To demonstrate the above anamoly, the case of the deponent-petitioner and that of T. Yarakaiah, his junior, is illustrated and thereby it is shown that the deponent was drawing basic salary of Rs. 1,600/- while Yarakaiah was drawing basic salary of Rs. 1,810/-. It is further stated that the petitioners sent representations to the Management, but there was no response and hence they filed this writ petition as a last resort.
3. The respondents filed a counter opposing the writ petition. It is stated in the counter that the long term settlement referred to in the petition was signed on May?, 1982 and it was made effective from January 1st, 1980 and it remained in force till December 31st, 1983. It is further stated that all the petitioners were in the highest salary grade applicable to the workmen of the Refinery at the time of promotion and accordingly they were considered for promotion to fill the vacancies in the entry level to management positions. It is asserted that promotion letters advising them of their promotion and inter-alia their revised basic salaries and other allowances in the following terms were issued to them:
"I hereby acknowledge my understanding and acceptance of the arrangements set forth above."
All the 24 petitioners were issued such letters at the time of their promotion and gave their acceptance of the above terms of promotion. It is then stated that after the expiry of long term settlement dated May 7, 1982, a new settlement was reached and signed on October 8, 1985 and it was made effective retrospectively from January 1, 1984. It is asserted that the salary scales applicable to workmen had an upward revision under the above settlement and they were given benefits from January 1,1984. It is, thus, asserted that January 1, 1984 is the cut-off date and the petitioners who were promoted prior to that date are not entitled to the benefits accruing to the workmen subsequent to that date. The writ petition is accordingly said to be devoid of merit.
4. A reply affidavit has been filed controverting the averments made in the averments of the respondents. It is once again asserted that the anamoly pointed out in the case of T. Appa Rao on one hand and Yarakaiah on the other has not been explained and that inspite of promotion of 10 out of 24 petitioners to next higher grade, the above anamoly is not wiped out and hence the policy of salary structure adopted by the Management seriously violates the principle that a senior should not draw less than junior.
5. Sri Krowidi Narasimham, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the long term settlement dated 8-10-1985 has resulted in an anamoly inasmuch as juniors are drawing more salary than their seniors who are petitioners herein. Citing the case of T. Appa Rao, one of the petitioners, he stated that Yarakaiah, who was junior to T. Appa Rao in the previous cadre, got promotion subsequent to 1-1-1984 and he has gained a march in respect of salary over his senior and such an anamoly has to be corrected by directing the respondents to raise the pay of the petitioners by adding a reasonable amount and treating it as personal pay as held in F.C.I. Ltd v. Sarat Chandra Rath, AIR 1996 SC 2746, and an unreported judgment in WP No.9772 of 1983, dated 11 -2-1985.
6. I perused the record and considered the contentions of Sri Krowidi Narasimham, learned Counsel for the petitioners. The long term settlement under which this anamoly is said to have been cropped up arrears to be one that was entered into in ! 982 and not in 1985. It is specifically averred in para 4 of the counter that the above settlement was signed on 7-5-1982 and made effective from January 1, 1980 retrospectively and it remained in force till the end of 1983. It is further asserted in the counter that all tlie petitioners were promoted and their salary was fixed as per the above settlement and at the stage of promotions, they were all served with letters-setting out their revised basic salaries, salary grade and other allowances and the Management has taken acknowledgment for the receipt of the above letters. It is noteworthy that the reply is silent on these vital aspects. Contrary to the above averments in the counter which are not controverted in the reply, Sri Narasimham contended that the above anamoly has occured on account of long term settlement dated 8-10-1985. That contention has to be rejected for the simple reason that there is no effective pleading in the reply controverting the assertion of the respondents that the long term settlement relevant to the petitioners is the one signed on 7-5-1982. Taking it for granted that it was long term settlement of May 7, 1982 that is relevant, it is seen that there was yet another settlement on 8-10-1985 under which Junior 'A' Grade Workmen were promoted subsequent to 1-1-1984. It so happened that they got different pay scales under the settlement of 8-10-1985. It is possible that the benefits accruing to them under the subsequent settlement are such that they exceeded the salary of the petitioners who were promoted prior to 1-1-1984 and under a different settlement. The question is whether these two group of employees constitute different cadres taking 1-1-1984 as cut-off date. Such a question was considered by the Supreme Court in the judgment F.C.I. Lid's cited (supra) and it has been held that workmen promoted as Officers after pay revision and those promoted before pay revision constituteddifferent classes and accordingly adoption of different methods for fixation of pay does not amount to discrimination. In view of the above authority, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
7. The argument that anamoly may be rectified by adding some special pay cannot be accepted for the simple reason that all the petitioners have executed acknowledgments of the letters of promotion wherein they have been informed of the pay structure after promotion. The Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in WP No.9772 of 1983 is also not applicable to this case.
8. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence it is dismissed, but without costs.