Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation & Anr. on 10 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8694/2014
Decided on 10.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
versus
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with
Mr.Naginder Benipal, Advocate
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing
inter alia an Inter Office Memo dated 23.1.2014, issued by the
respondent No.2/Pawan Hans Ltd., whereunder it has revised the
fixed monthly emoluments of the direct contractual employees
engaged by it.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Software
Engineer, was engaged by the respondent No.2/PHL on a contractual
basis for a period of three years, w.e.f. 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2013, at a
fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.30,000/-. After the period of his
contractual employment was over on 31.5.2013, the same was not
renewed by the respondent No.2/Pawan Hans Ltd.
3. On 23.1.2014, an Inter Office Memorandum was issued by the
respondent No.2/PHL, wherein it was conveyed that upon receiving
approval from the Board of Directors, the fixed monthly emoluments
of the direct contractual employees stood revised. Clause 1 of the
terms and conditions of the said Inter Office Memo, stipulated as
below:-
"The revision shall be applicable for those who are
as on date of issue of this order in employment
with Pawan Hans and would be effective from
01.04.2011 or from the date of commencement of
the individual contract, whichever is later provided
there has been no break of interruption of their
contractual appointment."
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of the
aforesaid Inter Office Memo ought to have been extended to him as
he was a contractual employee of the respondent No.2/PHL between
1.5.2010 to 31.5.2013 and the said Memo was made applicable w.e.f.
1.4.2011.
5. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner had
dispatched a legal notice dated 21.3.2014 to the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of the respondent No.2/PHL raising the very same
grievance which was turned down vide letter dated 11.4.2014
wherein it was clarified that the fixed monthly emoluments of
contractual employees in Pawan Hans was revised under the Inter
Office Memo dated 23.1.2014 with a stipulation that the said revision
would be applicable only to those contractual employees who were in
employment with the respondent No.2/PHL on the date of issuance of
the said Memo, and it would be effective "from 1.4.2011, or from the
date of commencement of the individual contract, whichever is later",
subject to a further condition that there should not be any break/
interruption in the contractual employment. It was stated that the
petitioner's contract had already expired on 31.5.2013 and therefore,
he was not entitled to claim any benefits under the aforecited Inter
Office Memo.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid
rejection order is illegal and the respondent No.2/PHL ought to have
made the Inter Office Memo applicable retrospectively, to all
contractual employees including the petitioner. He points out that
the petitioner's contract was valid from 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2013 and
therefore, the terms and conditions imposed in the Inter Office Memo
to the effect that the same would be effective from 1.4.2011, should
be read in his favour without applying the remaining terms and
conditions as imposed on the direct contractual employees.
7. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
considered his submissions in the light of the Inter Office Memo dated
23.1.2014. Through the said Memo, the respondent No.2/PHL has
revised the fixed monthly emoluments payable to its direct
contractual employees, but has curtailed the benefit to a particular
set of contractual employees, whose services have remained
uninterrupted. For him to claim entitlement, the petitioner was
required to remain in the employment of Pawan Hans Ltd. "from
1.4.2011 or from the date of commencement of the individual
contract, whichever is later". Further, the aforesaid Memo has
clarified that for claiming entitlement to the revision, there should not
have been any break or interruption in the contractual appointment.
In the present case, the petitioner's contract had commenced on
1.5.2010 and had ended on 31.5.2013 and thereafter the said
contract was not extended by the respondent No.2/PHL. As a result,
there was a break/interruption in his contractual employment with
the respondent No.2/PHL, which disentitles him to claim the benefits
flowing from the aforesaid Memo.
8. It is a well settled position that an employer is well empowered
to revise the salaries, pay scales etc. of the employees and the court
should ordinarily not interfere in the exercise of this power unless
such an exercise is found to be unreasonable or discriminatory in
nature. It is the privilege of an employer to make day-day-day
decisions as to how it should manage its affairs, including the extent
of salaries that it may fix for different cadres, the manner of
recruitment, the prescription of selection process adopted etc. and
the courts ought to refrain from interfering in the said issues, unless
the employee is in a position to demonstrate some gross
arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the decisions taken.
9. This Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or
perversity on the part of the respondent No.2/PHL in making the
Inter Office Memo applicable retrospectively but limiting it to a
particular set of contractual employees, who have remained on the
payrolls of the company. Further, it is not the petitioner's case that
he has been discriminated against, and other similarly placed
contractual employees of the respondent No.2/PHL, whose services
stand terminated, have been extended the benefit of the Inter Office
Memo, while he has been deprived of the same.
10. In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is found
to be devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in
limine.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 10, 2014 JUDGE
mk/rkb
