Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana vs The State Of Ap on 15 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
I.A.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2023
in
W.P.No.28519 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri Y.V. Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.Aswani Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Anup Kowshik Karavadi, Ld. Standing Counsel for AP TRANSCO appearing for the Respondents.
2. The Interim Prayer sought in I.A.No.1 of 2023 is as under:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, in the interim, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of T.O.O. (Addl.Secy-
Per).Ms.No.2924, dated 21.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2, and protect the basic pay scale of the Petitioners under T.O.O.No.814, dated 14.06.2018 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"
3. The Interim Prayer sought in I.A.No.2 of 2023 is only a consequential prayer which could be considered in the event that I.A.No.1 of 2023 is allowed. It reads as under:
2
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, In the interim, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein to pay salaries to the Petitioners in existing pay scales without implementing the T.O.O. (Addl. Secy-Per). Ms.No.2924, dated 21.08.2023 issued by Respondent No.2, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"
Submissions on behalf of Writ Petitioners
4. The submissions made by Sri Y.V.Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are to the effect that the present Petitioners belong to the category of 'other than workmen'; that, in this category, Assistant Executive Engineers, Deputy Executive Engineers and Executive Engineers are included; that, presently about 43 Engineers working in the capacity of Deputy Executive Engineers and Executive Engineers have approached this Court challenging the proceedings of the Respondent No.2 bearing No.CMD/JMD/Addl.Secy/ DS(Estt.IR&R)/ PO(IR)/ PRC/ 2022, dated 11.09.2023 (Ex.P.1) and T.O.O.(Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No.2924, dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3); that, vide Impugned Proceeding dated 11.09.2023, the Respondent No.2 has considered the Representations submitted by the Petitioners, but, however, the Respondent 3 No.2 had issued the proceedings declining to accede to the request made by the Petitioners seeking to continue with the earlier arrangement of 'elongated Master Scale'.
5. Sri Y.V.Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel would further submit that when the Respondent No.2 had issued proceedings dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3), the employees who belong to 'other than workmen' category have submitted their Representations to Respondent No.2 on the next day, i.e., on 22.08.2023 by assailing arrangements/agreements made under Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.08.2023, which was signed only by the leaders of workmen, but it contains arrangements in respect of all employees including the present Petitioners, who belong to the category of 'other than workmen'; that, it is alleged that the said Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.08.2023 is contrary to the Tripartite Agreement entered between two Engineering Associations in the year 1998 and had been made an integral part of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 and that the said Arrangement continued till date due to binding effect of the Tripartite Agreement; that, since the 4 Representations (10.08.2023 & 22.08.2023) submitted by the employees, who belong to the category of 'other than workmen' was not considered by the Official Respondents, they have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23427 of 2023, by assailing T.O.O. (Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No. 2924, dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3).
6. Sri Y.V.Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel would further submit that the Ld. Single Judge of this Court, at the admission stage (on 06.09.2023), had disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the Respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the Representations dated 10.08.2023 and 22.08.2023 (Ex.P.13) made by the Petitioners' Association and to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the said Order dated 06.09.2023 in W.P.No.23427 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:
"5. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 10.08.2023 and 22.08.2023 made by the petitioners' Association and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this 5 order. Till passing of such order, the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 shall not be given effect to.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied).
7. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the directions given by the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court, dated 06.09.2023 in W.P.No.23427 of 2023, the Respondent No.2 had considered the Representations of the Petitioners' Association (10.08.2023 and 22.08.2023) (Ex.P.13) and issued proceeding bearing No.CMD/JMD/ Addl.Secy/DS(Estt.IR&R)/ PO(IR)/ PRC/ 2022, dated 11.09.2023 (Ex.P.1), which has also been Impugned in the present Writ Petition along with proceeding bearing No.T.O.O.(Addl.Secy-Per) Ms.No.2924, dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3).
8. Sri Y.V.Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would further submit that the services rendered by the Engineers in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, which has been subsequently divided vide the Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, were considered on 6 a different platform owing to the peculiar nature of their job; that, therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Engineers Association entered into a Tripartite Agreement on 09.09.1997 and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Associate Engineers Association has entered into Tripartite Agreement on 25.04.1998 (Ex.P.4); that, these two Tripartite Agreements were given a statutory status by including them as an Annexure to the State Electricity Reforms Act, 1998.
9. Sri Y.V.Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has referred to Memo No.DGM(IR)/AS- Reg./Reg.Sec.2/1/37/99-2, dated 31.08.1999 to submit that the Additional Secretary of the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited has clarified that the Master Scale of workmen category is depriving the benefit of Stagnation Increments, Services Weightage Increments and Annual Increments and they shall be 7 extended duly elongated Master Scale at the rate of last increment corresponding to the basic pay of the employee covered under Proceedings dated 05.01.1999 and that the same shall be treated as part of pay for all purposes. This benefit was extended to the employees of the two Engineers Associations.
10. Sri Y.V.Prasad, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has also submitted that the financial stringency, as projected by the Official Respondents, is also not tenable. In support of this submission, Ld. Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Boards' Report (Ex.P.1 - Impugned Proceedings) and would submit that the net profits earned by the Respondent No.2 for the Financial Year 2019-20 is 115.03 crores and for the Financial Year 2020-21, the net profit earned by the Respondent No.2 is 216.41 crores. Ld. Senior Counsel would further submit that the Respondents cannot alter the service conditions of its employee who belong to the category of 'other than workmen' and the same is violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and that the 8 Tripartite Agreement cannot be altered without there being consensus ad idem amongst all the signatories (stake- holders); that, therefore, the Tripartite Agreement that was given statutory status is binding on the Government as well as the Respondent No.2.
11. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would also submit that the Ld. Single Judge of this Court, vide Order dated 06.09.2023 in W.P.No.23427 of 2023, had protected the interest of the Writ Petitioners by directing the Respondents not to give effect to the Proceedings dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3) till the passing of the Final Order. The Ld. Senior Counsel would submit that since the interest of the Petitioners was protected during the period of consideration by the Respondent Authority, he prays that the same arrangement should be continued in favour of the Petitioners till the disposal of this Writ Petition with a further direction to continue to pay the salary which the Petitioners were drawing prior to passing of the Impugned Order dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3).
9
Submissions on behalf of Official Respondent Nos.2 and 3
12. Sri Anup Kowshik Karavadi, Ld. Standing Counsel for AP TRANSCO appearing for the Official Respondents would submit, relying on the contents of the Preliminary Counter Affidavit dated 02.11.2023, that the Tripartite Agreement entered into by the erstwhile Government in the year 1997 does not bind the present establishment; that the earlier Pay Revision, 2018 had expired by 31.03.2022, therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has rightly appointed a retired Special Chief Secretary, Government of A.P, one Sri Dr. Manmohan Singh, I.A.S as One-Man Commission to study the concept of Pay Scales and Allowances being paid to the employees working under various institutions involved in activities relating to Electricity in the State, which includes 'other than workmen'; that the One-Man Commission held that the salaries relating to the workmen as well as 'other than workmen' in the electricity sector in this State are abnormally higher than similar employees in other States 10 and also higher than what is paid to similar employees in the public sector undertakings within this State; that the Master Scales of each employee of a specific cadre has been elongated abnormally; that as a consequence of the same, the quantum of increment got inflated; that in some cases, the salary of the employees of each cadre of power utilities in the State have exceeded 100% when compared to the similar cadre of the employees in the services of this State as well as public sector undertakings of the State; that the One-Man Commission opined that the salaries in the Electricity Sector cannot be higher than their counter-parts in the Government services as well as public sector undertakings on the ground that the employees in the power sector perform more onerous duties.
13. Sri Anup Kowshik Karavadi, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 further submits that the decision taken by the Government in rationalising the elongated Master Scale by imposing a 'cap' is in the nature of State Policy, and therefore, the Court shall not interfere; that there is financial crunch in the Respondents' 11 institutions and also that the continuation of the earlier method of 2018 Pay Revision would have serious financial implications on the part of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
14. Therefore, Sri Anup Kowshik Karavadi, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would urge that there are no grounds for the Court to pass any interim directions at this stage. Learned Counsel would also submit that if in the event that the Petitioners would ultimately succeed, the Official Respondents can always pay the arrears to the Writ Petitioners.
Issue
15. In the above premise, this Court has to consider whether the interest of the Petitioners is required to be protected by any Interim Orders, more particularly in the nature of suspending the Impugned Proceedings bearing No.CMD/JMD/Addl.Secy/ DS(Estt.IR&R)/ PO(IR)/ PRC/ 2022, dated 11.09.2023 (Ex.P.1) and Proceedings bearing T.O.O. (Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No. 2924, dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3) and to further direct the Official Respondents to 12 pay salaries of the Writ Petitioners as per pay scales that existed prior to the Proceedings bearing T.O.O (Addl. Secy- Per) Ms.No.2924 dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P.3) ?.
DISCUSSION:
16. The following facts are admitted :
The A.P.S.E.B Engineers Association and A.P.S.E.B Assistant Engineers Association have entered into Tripartite Agreements with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board on 09.09.1997 and 25.04.1998 respectively (Ex.P.4). The said Tripartite Agreements were signed by all the parties including the representatives of A.P.S.E.B Engineers Association and A.P.S.E.B Assistant Engineers Association.
The Additional Secretary of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has also given clarification vide Memo No.DGM (IR)/AS- Reg./Reg.Sec.2/1/37/99-2 dated 31.08.1999 (filed vide Memo dated 01.11.2023 before this Court in this Writ Petition) to the effect that such of those employees who have reached or crossed or so reach or cross the maximum 13 Master Scale whether the time of initial fixation of pay in Revision of Pay Scales, 1998 or at any time thereafter shall be allowed, Service Weightage Increments, Annual Increments and Stagnation Increments, as the case may be and entitled to 'duly elongated Master Scales at the rate of last increment in the Master Scale corresponding to Basic Pay of employees' ; that as per Para No.4 of the Tripartite Agreement (Ex.P.4), which is in the nature of guarantees given by the A.P.S.E.B, includes the guarantees relating to promotions, transfers, leave and allowances etc., (Para No.4 (b) of the Tripartite Agreement). It is also an admitted fact that under the 2018 Pay Revision (Ex.P.6), the employees belonging to 'other than workmen' were given two options in the Annexure annexed to the Notification dated 14.06.2018; whereas, under the current Pay Revision arrived at after considering the Report of the One-Man Commission, this option has been done-away with and also a 'cap' has been laid as regards the single Master Scale by depriving the Petitioners of the benefit of elongation. This deprivation is the main cause of heart-burn to the present 14 Petitioners inasmuch as the salaries that they were receiving would be diminished by about Rs.70,000/- (approximately) per month per employee.
17. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would submit that the 'capping' of the Master Scale as per the Impugned Proceedings is not only arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational but also illegal, inasmuch as the same is contrary to the terms in Tripartite Agreement. It is further submitted that even during the negotiations, the Petitioners did not agree with this proposal that would have deleterious effect on their service conditions and that the adverse projections as canvassed by the Respondents insofar as the crash crunch on this basis etc., is far from truth.
18. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been earning profits every year and that the profit is increasing in every financial year in a multi-fold manner. Learned Senior Counsel has also 15 drawn the attention of this Court to the Profit and Loss Statement of the Official Respondents to indicate Annual Net Profits etc., vide additional documents filed along with the Memo dated 01.11.2023.
19. As seen from the Preliminary Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 02.11.2023, at Paragraph Nos.5.1.14 and 5.1.15, it has been admitted by the Official Respondents that after the negotiations, the Office Bearers of the Associations, to which the Petitioners are the members, did not sign on the Minutes of the Meeting. Relevant portion at Paragraph No.5.1.14 of the Preliminary Counter Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder:
"5.1.14. It is submitted that although the power sector organizations are in huge losses besides no further borrowing capacity, the govt. and managements considering the consequences of strike that may happen in next few hours by then, have proposed a cap only on single master scale of highest category, in deviation to recommendations of commission, besides giving fitment of 8%. After much persuasion the employees have agreed to have a cap of single Master Scale of highest cadre as ceiling without further elongation, instead of cap of master scale of each cadre, besides providing 8% of fitment to all employees, and providing few other ancillary aspects. However, at the end of said meeting, after recording the minutes to the said effect, the 16 Associations of employees representing other than workmen, did not sign on the minutes of meeting while representatives of unions of workmen have signed on the said minutes of meeting."
Paragraph No.5.1.15 is also usefully extracted hereunder:
"5.1.15. It is submitted that in pursuance of said minutes of meeting as usual the memorandum of settlement reflecting the decisions recorded in the said with a ceiling of master scale of Rs.2.6 lakhs minutes of meeting was prepared by power utilities. On the said document the unions of employees of workers category have signed on 16-8-2023. In fact, even in the earlier pay revision negotiations also the Association's of employees other than workmen, never signed on the agreement, on the ground that as per tripartite agreement of 1998 had by then A.P.S.E.B employees and then Govt. of A.P. only negotiations are required to be held by management with employees, but not settlement. While the workers unions are concerned under section 18 of industrial disputes Act such settlement need to be arrived at besides negotiations on revision of pay scales etc. Therefore, the claim of petitioners that since they have not signed on the memorandum of settlement dt 16-8-2023 it has no legal binding on them is not correct."
20. The substantial legal issues raised by both the parties can be thrashed-out only during the final hearing and only after completing the pleadings. Therefore, whether there is any legitimate expectation on the part of the Writ Petitioners and whether the existing arrangement coupled with various agreements and clarifications would 17 constitute an estoppel against the Respondents not to vary the existing service conditions are issues which shall be finally considered. Therefore, while presently considering the prayers for interim relief as sought in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023, this Court is not expressing any view or opinion on any of the substantive issues.
21. The facts noted herein above are sufficient for this Court to opine that, prima-facie, balance of convenience is in favour of the Writ Petitioners inasmuch as the practice of 'elongated Master Scale' has been extended in their favour uninterruptedly for fairly a long time. The apprehension that is expressed by the Official Respondents that in the event the interim prayers, as prayed for, are granted in favour of the Writ Petitioners, it becomes extremely difficult for the Official Respondents to recover such payments which are already made in the event that the Writ Petitioners do not succeed in the present Writ Petition, is also considered by this Court. Keeping the balance of convenience and the difficulty to 18 recover in mind, this Court would issue the following directions as an ad-interim measure :
(i) That the Official Respondents shall continue to pay the salaries as per the 'elongated Master Scale' as per Pay Revision, 2018 with effect from 21.08.2023 until further/Final Order.
(ii) That out of the differential amount between the earlier arrangement and the proposed arrangement as per the Impugned Proceedings (Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3), half of that differential amount shall be paid to the Writ Petitioners on monthly basis, while the other half of the differential amount be deposited in an Escrow Account in any nationalised bank, which is interest bearing, until further/Final Order. This direction does not prevent the Official Respondents to pay the entire differential amount to the individual Writ Petitioners 19 without depositing the same in the Escrow Account, if they so chose.
(iii) That the said Escrow Account shall hold these amounts subject to the further/Final Order of this Court.
(iv) Insofar as half of the differential amount which is paid to the Writ Petitioners is concerned, the Writ Petitioners shall individually give an undertaking that in the event that they do not finally succeed in the present Writ Petition, the said amounts shall be reimbursed by the Writ Petitioners through deduction/adjustment from their salaries/pension as the case may be.
(v) In the event that any of the Writ Petitioners are facing any Disciplinary Proceedings, where the Charges, if proved, would lead to imposition of 'major punishment', the Official Respondents would be entitled to withhold the entire differential amount and further deposit the 20 entire differential amount in the same Escrow Account.
(vi) The Official Respondents shall furnish 'monthly statement' to the respective individual Writ Petitioners' as regards the deposits made into the Escrow Account.
22. With the above observations and directions, the I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are allowed. No Order as to Costs.
________________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) Dt:15.11.2023.
SDP/JKS 21 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD I.A.No. 1 & 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.28519 of 2023 15.11.2023 SDP/JKS