Delhi High Court
Michael Mili vs Ifci Limited on 17 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7959/2013
% 17th December, 2013
MICHAEL MILI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Banerjee, Advocate.
Versus
IFCI LIMITED ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.16860/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ W.P.(C) No.7959/2013 and C.M. No.16859/2013 (stay)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the
respondent-company seeks the relief of setting aside of the orders passed
W.P.(C) No.7959/2013 page 1 of 4
by the respondent dated 1.8.2013, 13.9.2013 and 25.9.2013 whereby pay
scale and allowances of the petitioner have been revised downwards.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner became an
employee of the respondent-company (as Senior Associate Vice President)
when the respondent-company was a private company. Appointment with
the respondent-company in its private avtar was therefore a contractual
employment. For this contractual appointment, there was no specific
period. Once there is no specific period, the appointment is only month to
month. The respondent-company thereafter became a government-
company (i.e instrumentality of State and reference to this government
company in this judgment is therefore reference to such instrumentality of
State) as the government took financial and managerial control of the
respondent-company.
3. I put it to the counsel for the petitioner that whether the
petitioner claims the benefits of a contractual employee or the status and
benefits of an employee of a public sector undertaking or an
instrumentality of State. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states
that petitioner claims status of an employee of a government company and
not any contractual status. Once that is so, no contractual benefits can be
W.P.(C) No.7959/2013 page 2 of 4
given, assuming they existed in favour of the petitioner consequent to his
employment with the respondent-company. Once contractual rights are not
claimed, this Court will have to only examine the action of the respondent
on the touchstone of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India with respect
to any arbitrary action in changing the pay scale of the petitioner.
4. The fact of the matter is that the respondent-company being a
financial institution decided to adopt the salary structure as given by the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Once the petitioner accepts his status as an
employee of the government company, and not a contractual status, the
government company is entitled to fix its own pay scales. It is only if the
action of the government company is arbitrary and violative of the
Constitutional right enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, would such
an action of the respondent be liable to be challenged in a Court of law.
On the aspect of arbitrariness, counsel for the petitioner has referred to
grounds 4(i) and 4(iv) of the writ petition which read as under:-
"4(i) Because the order for revision of scales of pay and
allowances by the Respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable.
4(iv) Because the Respondent has failed to follow the
principles of natural justice while not giving the Petitioner an
opportunity to be heard before implementing its order of revision
of scales of pay and allowances."
5. In my opinion, arbitrariness is not a mantra to be chanted.
W.P.(C) No.7959/2013 page 3 of 4
Arbitrariness is a conclusion and for such conclusion necessary facts have
to be stated as to how the action of the respondent-company is arbitrary.
Surely, fixing of a particular pay scale for the employees of the
respondent-company in accordance with the RBI pay structure cannot be
said to be arbitrary, much less on the limited grounds/facts which are
averred in the writ petition.
6. Counsel for the petitioner did seek to argue at one stage of
hierarchy of the designation and pay structure of a private company with
the hierarchy, designation and pay structure of the respondent-company
which is a government company, but, in my opinion that would be like
comparing oranges with apples. I do not understand as to under which law
and how the designations, hierarchy and salary structures of a private
company can be compared with equivalent aspects in a government
company.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 17, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
W.P.(C) No.7959/2013 page 4 of 4
