Shri Ramanayak Tiwari vs Tata Communications Ltd. & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 749 Del

*              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:-

(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

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

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.

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.

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