AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honorable Mr. Justice KS Jhaveri
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the letter dated03.10.1997 and to direct the respondent to pay difference of salary to the extent of 50 percent of the promotional post of Deputy Manager, for the period from 30.05.1986 to 18.01.1995 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent establishment in 1975 as a Store Keeper in pay scale of Rs.250-Rs.420. Later on, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service by an order dated 28.04.1981, which was challenged by him by way of Reference(LC-IDA-J)No.265/84 before the Presiding Officer, Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The learned Presiding Officer, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 19.11.1989 quashed and set aside the order dated 28.04.1981 and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and 80per cent back-wages.
The respondent approached this Court against the order of the Labor Court by filing Special Civil Application No.434 of 1990. This Court partly allowed the said petition vide order dated08.10.1992 and modified the order of the Labour Court by granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 50 per cent back wages instead of 80 per cent.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent approached the Hon''ble Apex Court byway of Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.15792 of1992. However, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the respondent vide order dated25.01.1993 and confirmed the order of the High Court.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was came to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50per cent backwages, on 17.02.1993, as ordered by the High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager vide order dated 16.01.1995 with immediate effect. Since, the petitioner made representation to the respondent on 21.02.1995 to give effect to promotion from due date, the date of promotion of the petitioner was fixed as 30.05.1986 and accordingly pay fixation of the petitioner was done on 08.11.1996 on the promotional post. However, the petitioner was denied arrears for the period from 30.05.1986 to 18.01.1995. The petitioner, therefore, made various representations dated 04.06.1997, 04.07.1997, 04.08.1997 to the respondent. The respondent, however, vide order dated 03.10.1997 rejected the request of the petitioner.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner wrote several letters dated 29.12.1997, 27.01.1998, 03.11.1998,requesting the respondent to explain as to under which rule he is being denied the benefit of arrears. But, the same were not responded to by the respondent. Hence, the present petition.
Mr. Supehia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent has committed an error by denying arrears to the petitioner. He, further, submitted that the respondent ought to have granted arrears of backwages on promotional post as ordered by the High Court and confirmed by the Apex Court to the petitioner. He submitted that the principle of No work, No pay'' will not apply to the facts of the present case, since he was ready and willing to work on the promotional post.
In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court, dated 07.02.1990 and23.09.2005, rendered in Letters Patent AppealNo.437 of 1988 and Letters Patent Appeal(Stamp)No.419 of 2005, respectively.
On the other hand, Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the respondent has strongly opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed for in this petition, since he has networked on the promotional post, actually.
Heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
From the material on record, it transpires that the petitioner was reinstated in service as ''Supervisor'' vide order dated 17.02.1993, with continuity of service and 50 per cent back-wages, as ordered by the High Court and confirmed by the Apex Court. Upon reinstatement, the petitioner was placed in revised pay scale of Rs.1400-Rs.2600, since the pay scale for the post of ''Store Keeper'' and ''Supervisor'' is same and the effect to the same was given from 08.10.1992. Pursuant thereto, the pay-scale of the petitioner was again revised from Rs.425-Rs.800 and then toRs.1400-Rs.2600, fixing his basic pay at Rs.1950/-, granting all other consequential benefits from the year 1986 vide order dated 22.04.1993. Here, it may also be noted that after reinstatement, the petitioner was transferred from Rajkot, firstly, to Marketing Department, Ahmedabad, by order dated 26.07.1994 and later on he was posted in Personnel Department at Ahmedabad vide order dated 24.08.1994. From the record it transpires that by orders dated30.08.1994 and 02.09.1994, the petitioner was given additional charge over and above his own duties. Learned advocate for the respondent has, therefore, rightly submitted that the same cannot be treated as promotion. Subsequently, by order dated 16.01.1995, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager in the pay scale of Rs.2200-Rs.4200 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.2200/per month. Here, it may be noted that the petitioner was granted notional promotion to the pay scale of Rs.500-Rs.900 with effect from 13.04.1980, by order dated 28.03.1995 and later on, through further clarification he was placed in pay scale of Rs.2200-4200 with effect from30.05.1986. Moreover, a perusal of the office order dated 08.11.1996 (ANNEXURE-L) further reveals that the pay-scale of the petitioner, on the promotional post, was fixed notionally after taking into consideration the entire period from01.05.1987 to 01.05.1996. Under the circumstances, the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, especially when, he has not actually worked on the promotional post.
In above view of the matter, the decisions of this Court rendered in Letters Patent AppealNo.437 of 1988 and Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 419 of 2005 and relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, will not apply to the facts of the case.
In the result, this petition fails and is DISMISSED. Rule is discharged.