Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PRP in State Farms Corporation Of India Ltd. vs P.S.Gupta on 1 July, 2014Matching Fragments
13. Gratuity; The ceiling of gratuity of the executive and non-
unionised supervisors of the CPSEs would be raised to Rs.10 Lakhs with effect from January 01, 2007.
4. It may be relevant to state here that Clause 3 of the said O.M deals with affordability for implementation of pay revision. It has been stated under the said clause as under:
"The revised pay scales would be adopted, subject to the condition that the additional outgo by such revision for a period of 12 months should not result in more than 20% dip in profit before tax (PBT) for the year 2007-08 of a CPSE in respect of executives as well as non-unionised supervisory staff taken together in a CPSE. CPSE that cannot afford to pay full package, can implement with either part PRP or no PRP. These CPSEs may pay the full package subsequently, provided the dip in the profit (PBT) is fully recouped to the original level."
9. Mr.G.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that O.M dated November 26, 2008 is very clear inasmuch as substantively the said O.M dealt with pay revision. He would state, even though the aspect like ceiling limit of gratuity was recommended to be enhanced to Rs.10 Lakhs with effect from January 01, 2007 but that is only if the additional outgo by such revision for a period of 12 months should not result in more than 20% dip in profit before tax for the year 2007-08. He would state that if the concerned Central Public Service Enterprise (CPSE) cannot afford to pay full package can implement with either part PRP or no PRP. It was his contention that the O.M also contemplated concerned CPSE may pay the full package subsequently provided the dip in the profit is fully recouped to the original level. According to him, the O.M itself gave liberty to the concerned CPSE to determine the benefit of full package at the discretion of the concerned implementing authority. It was also his contention that in the case in hand the petitioner had only sought the approval of the administrative ministry i.e. Ministry of Agriculture to the extent of pay revision with respect to all employees as the total financial implication put together for IDA Scale/CDA Scale worked out to Rs.3.1 Crores, which was within affordability limit. He would state that the petitioner had not calculated the financial implication of enhanced gratuity. In any case according to him, it was not part of Rs.3.1 Crores. I may point out here that during the course of submissions, I have called upon the petitioner to place before this Court decision of the Board of Directors with regard to the proposal approved by it, to be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture for its approval. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed the Agenda Item No.16 along with Annexure-II which is the minutes of meeting of the members of the committee of officers and union representatives and statement showing pay structures of the IDA pay scales. He would state that the presidential directive dated April 21, 2009 was also with regard to the pay revision and nothing more. It is his submission that the authorities below have totally misinterpreted the presidential directive to mean that enhanced gratuity was also to be granted. He has stated that the petitioner had granted the benefits as recommended and notified vide O.M dated November 26, 2008 from different dates, for example the revision of basic pay plus D.A was given with effect from January 01, 2007; transport allowance with effect from November 26, 2008; HRA with effect from November 26, 2008; perks @ 30% with effect from April 01, 2011 and 40% with effect from October 01, 2012; PRP 2011- 12; company car and leased accommodation have not been granted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 2001 SCC (L&S) 942 Sheetla Sharan Srivastava & Ors. vs. Government of India & Ors.
"3. Affordability for implementation of pay revision:-
The revised pay scales would be adopted, subject to the condition that the additional outgo by such revision for a period of 12 months should not result in more than 20% dip in profit before tax (PBT) for the year 2007-08 of a CPSE in respect of executives as well as non-unionised supervisory staff taken together in a CPSE. CPSE that cannot afford to pay full package, can implement with either part PRP or no PRP. These CPSEs may pay the full package subsequently, provided the dip in the profit (PBT) is fully recouped to the original level.
12. The question which needs to be answered is that the affordability has to be seen with regard to the pay revision only or with regard to other benefits including gratuity. The answer is with regard to every benefit. This I say so on the basis of clause 3 of the OM dated November 26, 2008 which stipulates, the revised pay scales would be adopted subject to the condition that the additional outgo by such revision for a period of 12 months should not result in more than 20% dip in profit before tax for the year 2007-08 of CPSE. It is qualified by further stipulation that if the CPSE cannot afford to pay full package, can implement with either part PRP or no PRP. The CPSE may pay full package subsequently provided that the dip in the profit is fully recouped to the original level.