* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 736 OF 2011
Reserved on: 21.11.2011
% Pronounced on: 03.2.2012
SHRI RAMANAYAK TIWARI ....APPELLANT
Through: In person.
VERSUS
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS. . . . RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Ankit Shah, Advocates for R.1 Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CGSC with Mr. Akshay Chandra, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. By means of this intra-Court appeal, the appellant assails the decision dated 5th August, 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge thereby dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. In the said writ petition, the appellant had claimed two reliefs of the following nature:-
LPA 736/2011 Page 1 of 6
(a) Directing the respondent no.1 to rectify grant the pay fixation of the petitioner by fixing his pay as ` 3000- 4500 on 01.04.1993 instead of ` 2375-3500;
(b) Directing the respondent no.2 to give the direction of the respondent No.1 to apply the promotional policy of either Central Government for Hindi Stream or other Government Public undertaking/Enterprises thereby quashing the stagnation of the petitioner promotion from E-4 onwards.
2. The respondents had questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that after the takeover of VSNL by the respondent Tata Communications Ltd. (TCL), no such writ petition could be preferred against the TCL. The matter was contested on merits as well. The learned Single Judge has left the question of maintainability of the writ petition open and dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in the aforesaid claim of the appellant.
3. We may point out at this stage itself that by another judgment dated 29th August, 2011 in batch of writ petitions, filed by the employees of the erstwhile VSNL taken over by the TCL, it is held that the writ petitions are not maintainable against TCL, the reconstituted entity of VSNL after its disinvestment. However, since we are also not finding any merit in the prayers of the appellant and are inclined to agree with the LPA 736/2011 Page 2 of 6 impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we are also leaving this question open in the instant case.
4. Coming back to the facts of the case, it is to be noted that the appellant had been appointed to the post of L.D.C. by the VSNL in September, 1973. Thereafter, he was appointed as Sr. Hindi Translator in May, 1987. In the year 1990, a decision was taken by the Government of India for change over from CDA pay pattern to IDA pay structure. This had happened pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Officers Association Vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and Another, (1990) 3 SCC 436. With this, the pay of the appellant was also fixed on IDA pay pattern. The pay of the appellant was fixed, alongwith other employees in January, 1994 with retrospective effect from 2nd January, 1990. He was holding the post of Sr. Hindi Translator on that date in the CDA pay scale of ` 1600-2660. His pay in the IDA pay pattern was fixed in the pay scale of ` 1730- 2930. It was thereafter upgraded in the IDA scale of Rs 2250-4150 as on 1st April, 1990. When the petitioner became Hindi Officer with effect from 26th April, 1990. His pay was fixed in the pay scale of ` 2650-5100 applicable to E.1 grade. On second up-gradation, he was placed in the LPA 736/2011 Page 3 of 6 IDA scale of ` 3100-5430 with effect from 1st January, 1990 which was applicable to E-2 grade. On promotion of the petitioner to the post of Manager (Hindi) w.e.f. 1st April, 1993 he was placed in the higher pay scale of ` 3700-5900.
According to the respondent the changeover of pay pattern from CDA to IDA between 2nd January 1990 to 1st January, 1994 was a one- time exercise as per agreed parameters for change over of pay scale of executives which was necessary to compensate the difference in CDA and IDA emoluments. Since the petitioner's promotion in the IDA scale of ` 3700-5900 was with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1990, it was necessary to notionally fix his pay in the CDA on 1st April, 1993. Accordingly, it was fixed in the equivalent CDA scale of ` 2375-3500 as on 31st December 1993 as was done in the case of other executives who were promoted in the same IDA scale of 3100-5900. The case set up by the appellant before the writ Court was that he was suffering on account of shift in the pay pattern scale from CDA to IDA. According to him it was mandatory for the respondents to have promoted the appellant after he completed five years at the E-3 stage.
LPA 736/2011 Page 4 of 6
5. Mr. Tiwari referred to the communication dated 18th November, 1993 by VSNL to him on the subject of changeover to the IDA pay structure and the guidelines enclosed therewith on the basis of which he tried to demonstrate as to how due to this changeover there was loss to him.
6. We are not convinced with the aforesaid argument and are of the view that the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for not interfering in the matter. As pointed out above, this switch over from CDA to IDA pattern was a policy decision uniformly applied by the executives to the erstwhile employees. It was the decision in fact taken in respect of more than 200 Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India and was an off-shoot of the directions given by the Supreme Court. On the said switch over the VSNL determined the equivalent IDA pay scale which was given to the appellant for the post he was holding from 2nd January, 1990 onwards when he was promoted as Manager (Hindi), an E- 3 grade post in June, 1994. His pay scale could possibly have been fixed only with reference to the posts in the VSNL. There was no post in the VSNL carrying the CDA pay scale of ` 3000-4500.
LPA 736/2011 Page 5 of 6
7. The Switch over took place in 1994 w.e.f. 1990. The pay of the appellant was fixed accordingly. He filed the writ petition only in the year 1999. Thus, the petition was even otherwise preferred belatedly. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW) JUDGE FEBRUARY 3, 2012 skb LPA 736/2011 Page 6 of 6