Dhanpati Ram vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner was employed with the Respondent No. 2 Rural Electrification Corporation, a wholly owned Government of India Public Sector Undertaking and claims to have been promoted to Grade E-2 on 16th July, 1997. It is further the case of the Petitioner, that as per the Office Order dated 8th June, 2000 of the Respondent No. 2 Corporation, the pay scale of executive and other posts in Respondent No. 2 Corporation were revised w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 but certain anomalies were found therein and which was removed vide order dated 7th May, 2003 and whereby the Petitioner became entitled to the pay scale of `11225-17250 p.m.; that however the approval of the said pay scale was required from the Respondent No. 1. Government of India and pending such approval, the emoluments at the revised pay scale released to the employees including to the Petitioner. The Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31st January, 2004. Since till then the approval of the Government of India to the revised pay scale had not been received, the Respondent No. 2 Corporation at the time of relieving the Petitioner obtained Indemnity Bond and Fixed Deposit for the differential amount received by the Petitioner, from the Petitioner.

It is further the case of the Petitioner that on 19th July, 2006 a "decision" was taken to further revise the pay scale of the post which the Petitioner was holding w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 and in accordance wherewith the Petitioner would have become entitled to further amounts from the Respondent No. 2 Corporation. It is further pleaded that in the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner, direction was issued for taking a decision in pursuance to Minutes of the Meeting dated 19th July, 2006.

This writ petition has been filed impugning the Office Order dated 22nd July, 2010 of the Respondent No. 2 Corporation where under the Petitioner is not entitled to any additional amount in terms of the "decision" of 19th July, 2006 (supra). The Petitioner challenges the Office Order dated 22nd July, 2010 on the ground of being inconsistent with the decision dated 19th July, 2006 and it is contended that the Respondent could not have changed the decision to the detriment of the Petitioner.

A perusal of the so called "decision" dated 19th July, 2006 filed as Annexure P4 to the petition shows that the same is only a "Summary Record of discussions held in the meeting on 19th July, 2006 under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Power). While as per the Office Order dated 7th May, 2003 (supra) the pay scales in Respondent No. 2 Corporation were sought to be matched with that of Power Financial Corporation (PFC), in meeting on 19th July, 2006 proposal to bring the pay scales in the Respondent No. 2 Corporation at par with those adopted by the NHPC was mooted.

Summary record of the discussion of the meeting held on 19th July, 2006 does not show it to be a decision. The expressions such as "could be" are used for further enhancing the pay scale in the Respondent No. 2 Corporation to bring them at par with NHPC. The counsel for the Petitioner is thus not right in contending that the order dated 22nd July, 2010 impugned in this petition is contrary to any earlier decision, inasmuch as no such decision is borne out from the documents filed.

The counsel for the Petitioner upon being faced with the aforesaid, contends that since the pay scales in Respondent No. 2 Corporation are to be fixed with approval of the Respondent No. 1 and since the Secretary (Power) of the Respondent No. 1 was present in the discussion on 19th July, 2006, the same has to be given precedence over the order dated 22nd July, 2010 of the Respondent No. 2 Corporation.

I am unable to agree. Neither has the counsel for the Petitioner been able to show that the Government of India which is stated to be but a shareholder of the Respondent No. 2 Corporation could insist upon the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 2 Corporation to take a particular decision nor has shown anything to the effect that decision of the Government is binding on the Respondent No. 2 Corporation. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate in the document Annexure P4 to show that the same is even a recommendation or a decision of the Government of India.

The law is well settled in this regard. It has recently been reiterated in Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, Jasbir Singh Chhabra and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, & Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Vartak Labour Union, that merely because during the course of movement of a file, a particular view is expressed, it does not bind the authorities ultimately empowered to take the decision, to follow the same view.

The counsel for the Petitioner has otherwise been unable to show any right to the pay scale prevalent in NHPC particularly when the Petitioner retired even before the discussion of 19th July, 2006.

On inquiry the counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has since been returned the FDR and the indemnity bond received from him.

There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.