Delhi High Court
Sh. B.K.Gupta & Ors. vs Indian Council Of Social Science ... on 16 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No 1179/2001, 1519/2001 & 7498/2000
% 16th December, 2013
1. W.P.(C) 1179/2001
SH. B.K.GUPTA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH & ANR.
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
2. W.P.(C) 1519/2001
SH. S.K.GUPTA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH & ANR.
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv
3. W.P.(C) 7498/2000
SH.HARISH AZAD& ORS. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
WPC 1179/2000&conn. matters Page 1 of 5
INDIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH & ANR.
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 1179/2001
1. Petitioners by this writ petition seek appointment from the posts of Section Officers to the posts/level of Under Secretary with consequential monetary benefits. Petitioners also seek implementation of the Govt. of India's office memorandum dated 20.8.1999.
2. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.1-employer shows that petitioners were granted higher scales however, higher scales were withdrawn because Ministry has refused to sanction the up-gradation of pay- scales. Respondent no.1 had therefore no option but to issue the order dated 29.11.2000 withdrawing /revoking the up-gradation of scales of pay.
3. Respondent no.1 gets its finances from the respondent no.2/Union of India and therefore it is Union of India which decides whether or not a particular pay-scale should or should not be granted to an employee of the WPC 1179/2000&conn. matters Page 2 of 5 respondent no.1. Once respondent no.2 has refused to grant higher pay- scales, pay-scales of the petitioners were therefore rightly withdrawn. I may note that the office memorandum of the Govt. of India with respect to benefits to be granted to government servants automatically do not apply to autonomous organizations and private bodies unless and until the concerned Ministry gives approval for extension of the office memorandum with respect to government employees even to employees of autonomous organization such as the respondent no.1. It is trite that service conditions of employees of autonomous organization are not and cannot be identical with those of government employees.
4. I may state that it has been held by Supreme Court consistently that courts cannot step in for fixing of pay-scales of employees of an organization because the organization knows best as per its circumstances and financial conditions as to what should be the pay-scales of its employees. A direct judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard is the judgment reported as Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408. Following paragraphs are relevant and which read as under:-
"16. We are afraid that the Labour Court and the High Court have passed their orders on the basis of emotions and sympathies, but cases in WPC 1179/2000&conn. matters Page 3 of 5 court have to be decided on legal principles and not on the basis of emotions and sympathies.
18. In State of M.P. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey this Court held that a post must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. If an employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled to any scale of pay. In our opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case also.
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, to, must know its limits.
40. The Courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment or these posts, regularisation, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improver for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional cases. The relevant case-law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. Of Police and we fully agree with the views expressed therein."
5. Accordingly, petitioners also cannot claim that they are entitled to particular pay-scales inasmuch as employer-organization decides what should be the pay-scales of its employees. Therefore, petitioners have no legal rights or constitutional rights for seeking up-gradation of their posts from Sections Officer to that of an Under Secretary.
WPC 1179/2000&conn. matters Page 4 of 5
6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
W.P(C) 1519/2001 & W.P.(C) 7498/2000 Issues in the present petitions are more or less identical to those decided in W.P.(C) No.1179/2001, and therefore, these writ petitions are also dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 16, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
WPC 1179/2000&conn. matters Page 5 of 5