Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Chd Industrial & Tourism Development ... on 13 October, 2014
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
LPA No.1461 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1461 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision:13/10/2014
Dinesh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and others
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.
The present Letters Patent appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 17.7.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant through which the appellant had prayed for the grant of higher pay scale than he was getting. The appellant had alleged discrimination viz a viz respondent No.2.
The facts in brevity leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant joined the respondent-corporation as a Manager-cum- Accountant. On 4.12.1984, his services were terminated. He raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination and vide award dated 1.11.1990, the labour Court held his termination to be illegal. Pursuant to the award passed by the labour Court, the appellant was ordered to be RAJEEV THAKRAL 2014.10.17 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1461 of 2014 (O&M) -2- reinstated in service as Kitchen Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.600-1120 revised to Rs.1400-2300/-. He had been reinstated as a Kitchen Supervisor primarily for the reasons that at the time when his services were terminated, he was working as a Kitchen Supervisor and at the time of his reinstatement, the post of Manager-cum-Accountant to which he had been appointed had been abolished. The appellant prayed that he allowed the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 which was being granted to respondent No.2 who according to him was similarly situated.
With the above grievance, the appellant approached this Court. On the respondents being put to notice, they stated before this Court that the appellant, at the time of his termination, was working as a Kitchen Supervisor and had been ordered to be reinstated as such by the labour Court. Since the year 1991, he has been working as a Kitchen Supervisor and therefore, had been placed in the pay scales applicable to the post. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, though he was also, like the appellant, appointed as a Manager-cum-Accountant but on the termination of his services, he had also preferred a reference before the labour Court. The labour Court had allowed his claim and as by that time, the post of Manager-cum-Accountant had been abolished, he was reinstated as an Assistant. The pay scales of an Assistant were Rs.1800-3200 being in the ministerial cadre whereas the appellant, who was working as a Kitchen Supervisor was member of the non-ministerial cadre and thus, entitled to the pay scales of that post, which were Rs.1400-2300.
A learned Single Judge of this Court went to the controversy in detail and after considering the same, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant holding as under:
RAJEEV THAKRAL2014.10.17 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1461 of 2014 (O&M) -3-
"In the present case, petitioner joined as Manager-cum- Accountant vide order Annexure P-1 dated 4.10.1983 with respondent No.1. Vide Annexure P2 dated 6.1.1984, petitioner was transferred from Lake Cafeteria, Rock Garden, Snack Bar and Camping Sites to the Bus Stand Canteens as Manager- cum-Accountant. Vide Annexure P3 dated 27.2.1984, petitioner was transferred to Chandigarh Yatri Niwas as Manager-cum-Accountant. As per the case of the petitioner himself, he was working as a Kitchen Supervisor at the time of his termination on 4.12.1984. In terms of the award passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated as Kitchen Supervisor with effect from 9.1.1991 vide Annexure P4 dated 27.2.1991. Vide Annexure P5 dated 27.3.1991, petitioner was transferred to Liquor Division as Incharge (Godown). Vide Annexure P6 dated 22.4.1992, pay scale of various categories of employees were revised by respondent No.1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the pay scale was revised from Rs.600- 1120 to Rs.1800-3200. It is the specific case of respondent No.1 that the post of Manager-cum-Accountant was abolished in the year 1986. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Kitchen Supervisor at the time of his termination and in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court, he was reinstated on the said post. Respondent No.1 vide Annexure P6 dated 22.4.1992 has revised the pay scale of various categories. Merely because the pay scale of Accountants, Assistants, Senior Scale Stenographers has been revised from Rs.600- 1120 to Rs.1800-3200 would not ipso facto entitle the Kitchen Supervisor to the same pay scale. The pay scales must have been revised by respondent No.1 keeping in view the duties performed by different categories of employees. So far as Frontoffice Supervisor/Shift Supervisor/Reservation Asstt/Asstt/Secretarial Kitchen Supervisor Incharge (Maintenance) Kitchen Supervisor, Incharge (Maintenance) are concerned, all the said employees were allowed the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640. However, petitioner can not claim RAJEEV THAKRAL 2014.10.17 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1461 of 2014 (O&M) -4- parity with Accountants/Assistants etc. So far as the posting of the petitioner as Incharge (Godown) is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that there is no such sanctioned post. Petitioner was merely appointed/adjusted as Incharge (Godown) due to exigency of work. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed."
Aggrieved by the above reproduced order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant and respondent No.2 having initially been appointed as Manager- cum-Accountant deserve the pay scales all times to come. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association; 2003(6) SCC 250; Jatinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab; 1997(2) RSJ 381 and Narendra Kumar v. Dharam Dutt; 1993(2) JT 423.
Having gone through the record, particularly, the judgment under appeal, we find that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justifiable. The same is well reasoned. Also that after the award by the labour Court, when the appellant was adjusted as a Kitchen Supervisor, he never challenged the same. Rather he happily joined on that post as he knew that the post against which he has been initially appointed i.e. Manager-cum-Accountant had been abolished. Once the appellant had voluntarily and without any challenge accepted the appointment against the post of Kitchen Supervisor, he has to accept the pay scales attached to that post. The appellant cannot be allowed to accept the RAJEEV THAKRAL 2014.10.17 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1461 of 2014 (O&M) -5- post but conveniently challenge the pay scales attached to the same.
It is true that at one point of time, the appellant and respondent No.2 had been appointed to the post of Manager-cum-Accountant but after their services were terminated, both of them had approached the labour Court challenging their termination. In the meantime, the post of Manager- cum-Accountant was abolished. Resultantly, when the award of the labour Court was passed in favour of the appellant and respondent No.2, they were both reinstated on different posts i.e. Kitchen Supervisor and Assistant respectively. This was done way back in the year 1991. In fact, at the time of termination of his services also, the appellant was working as a Kitchen Supervisor. On reinstatement to the above referred posts, they were granted pay scales applicable to the respective posts to which they had voluntarily joined. Thus, the issue of parity raised by the appellant viz a viz respondent No.2 is misconceived.
The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants hold that employees in the pre-revised scales cannot be discriminated in the revised scales. A perusal of the above noted facts shows that the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the appellants are not applicable.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
13.10.2014
rajeev
RAJEEV THAKRAL
2014.10.17 11:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh