Bombay High Court
Pandurang Narayan Bashetti vs Western Maharashtra Development ... on 13 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) BomCR 200, 2003 (97) FLR 19
Author: V Palshikar
Bench: V Palshikar, V Munshi
JUDGMENT
V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to grant him the revised pay scale according to 4th Pay Commission equivalent to that of the one granted to one Mr. Dhotre who along with the petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer when the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Company Secretary.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that there was an earlier litigation before this Court in W.P. No. 3362/88 in which a direction was issued directing them to appoint the petitioner in the service of the company. Accordingly on 9-9-1988 an order was issued appointing the petitioner as Assistant Company Secretary in the scale of Rs. 680-1250. Thus from 27-6-1985 the petitioner was working as Assistant Company Secretary. From the same day Mr. Dhotre was working as Administrative Officer in the scale of Rs. 680-1250.
3. After implementation of the 4th Pay Commission Mr. Dhotre was fixed in a scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs. 2400-4000. The claim of the petitioner therefore is that he has been arbitrarily denied the equal scale as was granted to Dhotre because they both were in the same cadre when they were so appointed in 1985.
4. Reply in detail has been filed on behalf of the company and it has been pointed out that after the petitioner and Mr. Dhotre were so appointed, 4th Pay Commission was made applicable and it was accepted by the company and the company had undertaken reconsideration and recategorisation of their employees. In the recategorisation Mr. Dhotre was cadarised as Administrative Officer in a higher cadre and the petitioner was cadarised in next below the cadre as Assistant Company Secretary and therefore when the 4th Pay Commission was given to the employees of the company, the petitioner was given the scale of Rs. 2400-4000. This was done by the order dated 14-10-1989 which is impugned in this petition.
5. The claim of the petitioner in nutshell is that he and Mr. Dhotre were appointed with effect from 27-6-1985 in the scale of Rs. 680-1250. After implementation of the 4th Pay Commission the different scales cannot be given to the two and the denial of the scale to the petitioner is liable to be quashed as a consequence thereof the petitioner is also entitled to a direction of that scale. We are unable to accept this contention on behalf of the petitioner for the reason that there has been valid recadarisation after their appointment. The company Managing Board has the power to undertake such recadarisation and reclassification. The petitioner nowhere disputes this fact that power to recadarisation is existing in the company management. The company has filed extracts of its decision taken by the management in relation to recategorisation and in that it is observed that :
"It was therefore decided by the management that during the implementation of the revised pay scale as per 4th Pay Commission the issue of recadarisation can be resolved."
Accordingly the resolution of that issue was taken up and categorizations were created. The management goes on to observe that:
"Initially the Assistant Company Secretary and Administrative Officer were given same scale of Rs. 680-1250. However, Administrative Officer being considered as shouldering more responsibilities than the Assistant Company Secretary, he was given scale granted to the Senior Management cadre. However Assistant Company Secretary has to be kept as Junior Management cadre and was given new scale accordingly."
It will thus be seen that the recategorisation while implementing 4th Pay Commission was done on rational basis because Administrative Officer had to shoulder higher responsibilities, he was kept in the senior management cadre and the Assistant Company Secretary was continuing in the junior management cadre. We see no fault in this categorization. There is no complaint that it has been done and the petitioner was not given 4th Pay Commission according to this categorization. There is therefore no substance in this petition. The same is disposed of.
