Dr. S. Chakravarthy vs Union Of India And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 4464 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+         Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5692 of 2001


%                                  Decided on: November 04, 2009


      Dr. S. Chakravarthy
      Ex-Member, MRTP Commission
      C-1/20, Humayun Road
      New Delhi.                                        ..... Petitioner

                                Through:    Mr. R.D. Makheeja, Adv.

                       Versus

1.    Union of India
      Through Secretary
      Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
      and Pensions
      Department of Personnel
      North Block, New Delhi.

2.    Union of India
      Through Secretary
      Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs
      Department of Company Affairs
      Shastri Bhawan
      New Delhi.                                    ..... Respondents

                                Through: Mr.Amit Bansal with
                                         Ms.Maneesha Singh, Advs.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA



WP (C) No. 5692/2001                                Page 1 of 8
 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                                   Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                                Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                                    Yes


MADAN B. LOKUR, J. (ORAL)

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd March,

2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in

OA No. 1123/1999.

2. The Petitioner was working as Commissioner for Land

Revenue in Andhra Pradesh and was drawing a pay of Rs.8,000/- per

month. He made a representation for being posted in Delhi on account

of the fact that his wife was also posted in Delhi. In response to his

request, the Petitioner was informed that he was being considered for

appointment as a Member of the MRTP Commission in the scale of

Rs.7300-7600 for a period of five years or till he attains the age of 65

years, whichever is earlier. The Petitioner was asked to communicate

his availability.

3. The Petitioner conveyed his willingness to accept the post of

Member, MRTP Commission unconditionally by a letter dated 23 rd

November, 1993. Accordingly, the Petitioner was appointed as

Member, MRTP Commission for the period of five years from the date

he assumes charge.

4. After he joined as Member, MRTP Commission, the

Petitioner requested that his pay be fixed at Rs.8,000/- which was the

pay he was drawing when he was the Commissioner for Land Revenue

in Andhra Pradesh. This request was rejected by the Respondents.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an original

application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

6. The Tribunal has referred to Section 6(5) of the MRTP Act,

which reads as follows: -

"The Chairman of the Commission and other members shall receive such remuneration and other allowances and shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed.

Provided that the remuneration of the Chairman or any other member shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his retirement."

7. The Tribunal has also referred to Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the

MRTP Commission (Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members)

Rules, 1970 which read as follows: -

"3. Remuneration, Allowances, etc. of Chairman

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx xxx (3) A person, not being a serving or a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court appointed as Chairman shall be paid a salary of Rs.8000/- per mensem and shall be entitled to draw such allowances as are admissible to a Government officer of the first grade.

Provided that if such person at the time of his appointment as Chairman is in receipt of a pension in respect of any previous service under the Government or any local body or authority owned or controlled by the Government, such salary shall be reduced by the amount of pension and pension equivalent of any other form of retirement benefits.

4. Remuneration, allowance of members A person, not being a serving or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, appointed as a member shall be paid on and from the 1st day of January, 1986 salary in the scale of Rs.7300-100-7600 per mensem and shall be entitled to draw such allowances as are admissible to a Government officer in the first grade. Provided that if such person at the time of his appointment as Member was in receipt of a pension in respect of any previous service under the Government or any local body or authority owned or controlled by the Government, such salary shall be reduced by the amount of pension and pension equivalent of any other form of retirement benefits."

8. On a consideration of the statutory provisions, the Tribunal

concluded that the salary of the Petitioner could not be fixed beyond the

prescribed scale of Rs.7600/-.

9. Before the Tribunal (and also before us), the Petitioner relied

upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Khosla v. Union of India

and others, Civil Appeal No. 2132/1997 decided on 17 th March, 1997.

10. Shri M.P. Khosla was the Chief Secretary in the State of

Jammu & Kashmir and had reached the pay scale of Rs.8000/- per

month. He was later appointed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of

Jammu & Kashmir Industries Limited, which was declared to be a post

equivalent in status and responsibilities as that of a Chief Secretary. He,

therefore, drew the pay scale of Rs.8000/- per month.

11. Shri M.P. Khosla was subsequently appointed in some other

capacities also and in all these capacities the equivalence was

maintained. Eventually, Shri M.P. Khosla was offered the appointment

of Secretary, AAIFR in the pay-scale of Rs.7300-7600/-. He accepted

this post but after his appointment, he represented to the Union of India

that his higher pay may be protected as being personal to him. This was

rejected by the Union of India and Shri M.P. Khosla then preferred an

original application before the Tribunal which was dismissed. Against

the decision of the Tribunal, Shri M.P. Khosla approached the Supreme

Court and his appeal was allowed.

12. The Supreme Court noted that it would be unjust to deny the

higher salary to Shri M.P. Khosla only on the ground that he accepted

the lower post with his eyes wide open. The Supreme Court was of the

opinion that the ends of justice demand that Shri M.P. Khosla should be

paid all monetary benefits of an equivalent post because it would be just

and equitable to do so.

13. On our reading of the decision, we find that the Supreme

Court had confined the case to its own peculiar facts inasmuch as the

claim of Shri M.P. Khosla was that his salary should be fixed at

Rs.8,000/- as being personal to him. Insofar as the present case is

concerned, no such request is made for fixing the pay as personal to the

Petitioner.

14. That apart, we find that there are statutory rules which fix the

salary of a Member of the MRTP Commission and it would not be

appropriate for us to violate the statutory rules only to benefit the

Petitioner.

15. The Tribunal has noted that if the relief prayed for by the

Petitioner is granted to him, it is not as if the benefit will accrue to him

only but that it would accrue to all Members of the Commission placing

a financial burden on the Respondents. In our opinion, this issue has

now become academic in view of the abolition of the MRTP

Commission.

16. The Tribunal finally held that the salary of the Chairman is

fixed at Rs.8,000/- and granting the same salary to a Member of the

Commission would be putting him on par with the Chairman.

According to the Tribunal, this will not be appropriate in view of the

higher status and more onerous duties, functions and responsibilities of

the Chairman. There has to be some distinction between the salary paid

to the Chairman and to the Members of the Commission.

17. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard

is correct keeping in mind the fact that the Chairman of the Commission

is a retired Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court and he has far

more onerous duties and responsibilities as a Chairman than a Member

of the Commission. A difference must, therefore, be maintained. In this

regard, Section 5(2) of the MRTP Act is relevant and this reads as

follows: -

"5. Establishment and constitution of the Commission. -

              (1)      xxx        xxx        xxx

              (2)      The Chairman of the Commission shall be a

person who is, or has been or is qualified to be, a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court and the members thereof shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to Economics, Law, Commerce, Accountancy, Industry, Public Affairs or Administration."

18. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find it appropriate

to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

19. The writ petition is dismissed.

                                             MADAN B. LOKUR, J



NOVEMBER 04, 2009                            MUKTA GUPTA, J
kapil