Dhanpati Ram vs Uoi & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 2125 Del

         *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 20th April, 2011

+                              W.P.(C) 2461/2011

%        DHANPATI RAM                                 ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Advocate.

                                   Versus
         UOI & ANR                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Ms. Sweety Manchanda & Mr.
                                          Anupam Dubey, Advs. for R-1.
                                          Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Adv. for R-1
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    NO

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. 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. 1 st 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.

2. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 19 th 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.

3. This writ petition has been filed impugning the Office Order

dated 22nd July, 2010 of the respondent no.2 Corporation whereunder

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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 22 nd July, 2010 of the respondent No.2

Corporation.

7. 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.

8. The law is well settled in this regard. It has recently been

reiterated in Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180,

Jasbir Singh Chhabra Vs. State of Punjab (2010) 4 SCC 192 &

Union of India Vs. Vartak Labour Union JT 2011 (3) SC 110 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.

9. 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.

10. On inquiry the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

has since been returned the FDR and the indemnity bond received from

him.

11. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed in

limine. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 20, 2011 M