M.T. Verghese vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4119 Del

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       W.P. (C) 3272/1989

                                                         Reserved on: 9th August 2011
                                                         Decision on: 25th August 2011

        M.T. VERGHESE                                                       ..... Petitioner
                                       Through:          Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

                         versus


        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                               ..... Respondents
                                       Through:          Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate for R-2
                                                         and R-3/Mazagon Dock Ltd.


                 CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

          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 in Digest?       No


                                  JUDGEMENT

25.08.2011

1. The prayer in this petition is for quashing the decisions dated 1st October 1987

and 2nd June 1989 of the Mazagon Dock Ltd. ('MDL'), Respondent No. 2, denying

the Petitioner pay and allowances granted to other draughtsmen working under

Respondent No. 2 and denying due confirmation to the Petitioner with effect from

the date when he completed six months' service under Respondent No. 2.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as draughtsman in the Directorate of Naval Design,

Naval Headquarters in MDL at New Delhi on 20th May 1981 on a temporary/casual

basis for a period of six months. He was given a consolidated salary of Rs. 800 per

month. The Petitioner joined the services of MDL on 3rd June 1981. On 1st July

1982 the Petitioner made a representation to the MDL headquarters at Mumbai that

his services should be regularised as he had completed more than one year of

service. He thereafter made three similar representations. The MDL, on 27th July

1984, informed the Petitioner that he had been taken on probation for a period of

six months. Inter alia, the Petitioner was informed by the said letter that he would

be given a starting monthly pay of Rs. 441 in the scale of Rs. 405 - 595 and a fixed

dearness allowance of Rs. 300 per month linked to the average All-India Consumer

Price Index at 433 (1960 = 100). In addition, he was to be paid CCA and HRA that

would be applicable at New Delhi, i.e., 6.5% and 15% respectively of basic pay.

3. The Petitioner on 25th August 1987 renewed his request for confirmation and for

fixing the salary and allowances on par with other employees of MDL. On 1st

October 1987, the MDL at Mumbai informed the Chief of Naval Staff, New Delhi

that the application received from the Petitioner and three other employees had

been considered and "it has been decided that we will not be able to offer the same

rates of pay and allowances as per other corresponding staff of MDL. If the above

staff are unwilling to continue at the current rates of pay and allowance, they may

be allowed to resign from the present job and in such event, the staff will be

informed that they should give notice of three months as per the terms and

conditions of recruitment." It appears that on 28th October 1987, the Naval

Headquarters at New Delhi wrote to the Chairman and Managing Director of MDL

at Bombay asking it to reconsider its decision and to narrow down the difference in

payment between those working at New Delhi and other offices at Mumbai and

elsewhere. On 15th December 1988, the MDL in Mumbai informed the Petitioner at

Delhi that his pay scale had been revised with effect from 1st October 1988. The

DA was to be linked to the CPI for industrial workers at index 492. On 29th April

1989 the Petitioner was confirmed as draughtsman with effect from 1st October

1984. It was stated therein "you are required to work at any premises and precincts

thereof of the company. Other conditions of service will be the same as applicable

to your cadre under the rules of the company." On 16th January 1989 the Petitioner

sent another detailed representation seeking confirmation from an earlier date and

parity of pay and allowances with his counterparts working in Mumbai and other

places. He repeated these representations on 9th May and 5th June 1989. On 2nd June

1989 the MDL at Bombay informed the Petitioner at New Delhi that he was

engaged in a purely temporary capacity in June 1981 and his request for

confirmation from 1st December 1981 could not be acceded to. After the

Petitioner's two representations dated 19th June and 21st July 1989 did not elicit any

response, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as

mentioned hereinabove.

4. The case of the Respondents is that the Petitioner had accepted the terms and

conditions of service as mentioned in the letter of formal appointment dated 27th

July 1984. It is further submitted that the conditions of service of MDL's

employees at Delhi were totally different from those at Bombay and that employees

of Bombay were expected to be more skilled. In a further affidavit, it was stated by

MDL that the Petitioner did not possess the skills required of a draughtsman at

Bombay and therefore the nature of his work was different. MDL has placed on

record a comparative statement of the salaries paid to draughtsmen at Mangalore,

Bombay and Delhi. While the pay scale is the same for all the employees, the

difference occurs due to the DA being different for those at Bombay where they are

paid on the Textile DA pattern which is not payable to those outside Mumbai. The

Petitioner has in his further reply to the above affidavits contended that he does

possess the prescribed qualifications for a draughtsman at Mumbai. He claims that

the work at Delhi is more onerous than that of his counterparts in Mumbai.

5. The above submissions have been considered. It does appear that the making of

repeated representations on the issue of confirmation cannot explain the laches in

the Petitioner approaching this Court for relief. It was made clear to the Petitioner

by the MDL that his confirmation would not be from a date earlier than 1st October

1984. The appointment in 1981 was indeed on a temporary/casual basis. In the

absence of the Petitioner being able to show any rule or regulation that guarantees

confirmation from a date during which he was working on a casual/temporary

basis, it is not possible to issue a mandamus to the MDL to grant the Petitioner

such relief.

6. As regards parity of pay with the counterparts in Mumbai and other places, the

correspondence shows that at the time of his appointment in New Delhi the

Petitioner was informed that his DA would on the industrial DA pattern and the

CCA and HRA would be that applicable in New Delhi. The Respondents have in

their further affidavits explained the basis for the difference in pay for the same

posts in the three cities, i.e., Mumbai, Delhi and Mangalore. The draughtsmen at

Mumbai are given DA on the Textile DA pattern. This therefore cannot be said to

be arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. Further, in exercise of its powers under

Article 226, this Court cannot possibly undertake the exercise of comparing the

nature of duties in regard to posts at different cities of MDL for the purpose of

examining what the pay scales ought to be. In the circumstances this court is unable

to grant this relief either.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed but in the

circumstances with no order as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

AUGUST 25, 2011