M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd ... vs Manoj Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 467 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       W.P.(S) No. 2663 of 2019

      M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered office at
      Lodi Road, Ispat Bhawan, New Delhi 110003, having one of its
      Steel Plants Known as Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan P.O. &
      P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand through Sri
      Arvind Upadhyay, Assistant General Manager (Law), Bokaro
      Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist.
      Bokaro                                  ...     ...     Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.    Manoj Kumar
2.    Ram Pravesh Rajak
3.    Shailendra Mohan Kateryar
4.    Narendra Kumar
5.    Amrendra Kumar Sinha
6.    Aswini Kumar
7.    Ram Pratap Mahto
8.    Dineshwar Thakur
9.    Shishir Kumar
10.   Nandu Baitha
11.   Kumar Masum
12.   Bijendra Ram
13.   Sudhansu Kumar
14.   Dasrath Kapardar
15.   Rabindra Nath Singh
16.   Ashok Kumar Priyadarshi
17.   Rajendra Kumar Mandal
18.   Binay Kumar Choudhary
19.   Amaresh Kumar Srivastava
20.   Md. Ghulam Nezamuddin
21.   Jay Prakash Ram
22.   Raja Ram Roy
23.   Bijay Kumar Roy
24.   Budhram Samanta
25.   Dhananjay Kumar
26.   Shiv Narayan Yadav
27.   Awadh Kishore Prasad
28.   Devendra Kumar
29.   Raj Kishore Ram
30.   Markandey Jonko
                             ...    ...     Applicants/Respondents
31.   Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy
      Industries and Public Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
      110001.
32.   Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel Udyog
      Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 ...          Proforma Respondents
                                2



                                 With
                       W.P.(S) No. 2125 of 2019

      M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered office at
      Lodi Road, Ispat Bhawan, New Delhi 110003, having one of its
      Steel Plants Known as Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan P.O. &
      P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand through Sri
      Arvind Upadhyay, Assistant General Manager (Law), Bokaro
      Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist.
      Bokaro                                  ...     ...     Petitioner
                                  Versus
1.    Sidhanath Prasad Singh
2.    Uday Chandra Kumbhakar
3.    Subir Kumar Jha
4.    Surendra Upadhyay
5.    Chandra Sekhar Rai
6.    Bijendra Kumar
7.    Ashok Kumar
8.    Kamal Kishore Singh
9.    Bijendra Prasad
10.   Shankar Mishra
11.   Sunil
12.   Binod Kumar
13.   Kaushal Kishore Singh
14.   Shashi Bhushan Singh
15.   Hari Lal Manjhi
16.   Awadhesh Kumar Choudhary
17.   Vijay Kumar Gupta
18.   Ashok Kumar Bhagat
19.   Sharad Chandra Mahto
20.   Lakshmi Kant Das
21.   Devavrata Kumar Saha
22.   Binaya Kumar
23.   Ramendra Singh
24.   Md. Aftab Karim
25.   Sunil Kumar Sinha
26.   Sukhdeo Ram
27.   Deo Raj Pandey
28.   Jai Prakash Mishra
29.   Ravindra Kumar Sinha
30.   Birendra Prasad Singh
                             ...    ...     Applicants/Respondents
31.   Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy
      Industries and Public Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
      110001.
32.   Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel Udyog
      Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 ...          Proforma Respondents

                                   With
                              3



                     W.P.(S) No. 2689 of 2019

    M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered office at
    Lodi Road, Ispat Bhawan, New Delhi 110003, having one of its
    Steel Plants Known as Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan P.O. &
    P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand through Sri
    Arvind Upadhyay, Assistant General Manager (Law), Bokaro
    Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist.
    Bokaro                                  ...     ...     Petitioner
                                Versus
1. Murari Prasad
2. Prahlad Ram
3. Rajendra Prasad Sharma
4. Saibal Dasgupta
5. Sarva Deo Tiwari
6. Arup Kumar Mukherjee
7. Sudhir Kumar Singh
8. Prit Ranjan Prasad
9. Vinod Kumar Ojha
10. Onkar Nath Verma
11. Bhanu Prakash
12. Theoplil Lakra
13. Ayodhya Prasad Mahto
14. Shambhu Saran Singh
15. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad
16. Tej Prakash
17. Vijay Kumar
18. Sanjay Kumar Singh
19. Akshya Kumar Singh
20. Umesh Kumar Singh
21. Jai Krishna Pattnaik
22. Ramjee Prasad Singh
23. Kuku Roy Sarkar
24. Bali Ram Dubey
25. Awadhesh Kumar Pathak
26. Tapeshwar Narayan Deo
                           ...    ...     Applicants/Respondents
27. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy
    Industries and Public Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
    110001.
28. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel Udyog
    Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 ...          Proforma Respondents

                               With
                     W.P.(S) No. 2702 of 2019

   M/s M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered
   office at Lodi Road, Ispat Bhawan, New Delhi 110003, having
   one of its Steel Plants Known as Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat
   Bhawan P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand
                              4



     through Sri Arvind Upadhyay, Assistant General Manager
     (Law), Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
     Steel City, Dist. Bokaro     ...    ...                Petitioner
                                  Versus
 1. Anup Kumar Choubey
 2. Pradeep Kumar Pandey
 3. Kailesh Kumar Mandal
 4. Amar Nath Ghosh
 5. Rabindra Nath Mukherjee
 6. Devendra Prasad Singh
 7. Nand Kumar
 8. Sayed Mohammad Kashim
 9. Basu Deo Rajwar
 10. Vinay Kumar Singh
 11. Surendra Singh Yadav
 12. Herman Bage
 13. Satish Mohan Jha
 14. Sadanand Mahato
 15. Uma Shankar Sahay
 16. Prabhat Kumar
 17. Aslam Ansari
 18. Bijay Prasad
 19. Md. Ahmad Ali
 20. Radha Raman Singh
 21. Nabarun Ganguly
 22. Ashok Kumar
 23. Arun Kumar Pandeya
 24. Naween Prasad Srivastava
 25. Arun Kumar
 26. Ambika Ram
 27. Anoop Prasad
 28. Kumar Rajiva Ranjan
 29. Virendra Kumar Sinha
 30. Parbhu Nath Upadhyay
                              ...   ...    Applicants/Respondents
 31. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy
     Industries and Public Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
     110001.
 32. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel Udyog
     Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 ...           Proforma Respondents
                              ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

---

Through : Video Conferencing

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gunendra Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. M. M. Pal, Senior Advocate

: Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate For the Union of India Mr. Bharat Bhushan Prasad, CGC Mr. Devanand Kumar, CGC Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Sr. Panel Counsel

---

14/02.02.2021

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. Gunendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents assisted by Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate.

2. Respondent-SAIL in the Original Application decided by order dated 09.01.2019, by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi (Annexure-1) has preferred these writ petitions being aggrieved by quashing of para-2(iv) of the notification dated 29.12.2015 issued by SAIL and the direction to make payment of additional fixed amount as mentioned in the said order dated 29.12.2015 to the affected employees from the respective dates on which the pay anomaly occurred. Rest of the conditions in the notification dated 29.12.2015 remained the same.

3. The undisputed facts of the parties are briefly stated hereinafter:

For convenience facts as are borne on record in W.P. (S) No. 2663 of 2019 are being referred to. Applicants joined Bokaro Steel Plant under SAIL between 1976-1994 in non-executive cadre. Wage revision was effected for both non-executive and executive cadre w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Some of the applicants were promoted to executive cadre notionally from 30.06.2008 (2008 batch), whereas the actual date of promotion was 27.03.2009. Other applicants were promoted to the executive cadre notionally from 30.06.2010 (2010 batch), whereas the actual date of promotion was 28.12.2010. Wage revision takes place for non-executive cadres every five years. The second wage revision became effective from 01.01.2012 pursuant to which the

pay scale of non-executives became more than the pay scale of executives. The benefit of pay revision were granted from July, 2014. Wage revision of executive cadre is undertaken every 10 years. Therefore, wage revision of executive cadre was due since 01.01.2017. The memorandum of agreement arrived at between the management and workers on 01.07.2014 provided fitment benefits of 17% of basic pay + D.A. to only such workers/non-executives who were on rolls of the company as workers on 31.12.2011 and continued to be so as on 01.01.2012. Applicants who were promoted in 2008 and 2010 to executive cadre raised a pay anomaly grievance that they were drawing less salary (basic + D.A.) compared to non-executive employees junior to them. SAIL in order to address the above mentioned peculiar anomaly issued the letter dated 29.12.2015 granting the affected executive cadre employees additional amount (difference between the salary of executive and non-executive) effective prospectively from 01.01.2016. All the executives of 2008 and 2010 junior officer batch were promoted to the post of Assistant Managers (E2 Grade) from 31.12.2016.

4. In this factual background, applicants approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, seeking quashing of the orders dated 29.12.2015 and 30.07.2016 vide O.A. No. 350 of 2017 and other analogous original applications on 06.04.2017. By order dated 04.01.2018, learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata directed the applicant to approach the CAT, Ranchi as their cause of action fell within the jurisdiction of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and pleadings on record, learned Central Administrative Tribunal held as under: -

"4.On the issue of jurisdiction, we observe that this case was first filed before CAT, Calcutta Bench on 06.04.2017 and as per that bench's order dated 04.01.2018, it was ordered to be filed before Ranchi Circuit Bench. Since the place of working of

the applicants is within the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Circuit Bench, we conclude that we have the jurisdiction to decide this matter. On the issue of limitation, it is clear that the impugned order is dated 29.12.2015 and the applicants have agitated this matter before the Calcutta Bench of CAT since 06.04.2017. Since the non-payment of compensatory additional amount did result in a continuing loss, delay of a few months cannot be considered to be a fatal delay. Hence, we do not find this case to be barred by limitation.

5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they would be satisfied if the Para- 2(iv) of the order dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure A/8) was revised to make the order applicable from the date on which the anomaly as defined in Para-2(i) of the same order occurred.

6. After going through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, it is clear that an anomaly did occur since the Basic + DA of employees in the executive cadre became less than those in the non-executive cadre. This fact is accepted in Annexure A/8. It is also clear that this dispute has mainly arisen because of making this order effective prospectively. No reason is given, either in the respondents' written statement or during the course of arguments, about why the correction of anomaly was implemented only from a prospective date. The learned counsel for the respondents did argue that the subsequent revisions in the pay and allowances of the executives have more than covered the loss that they might have suffered because of this anomaly. This cannot be considered as a correct explanation since these subsequent revisions were not limited to only the employees affected by the anomaly. In the absence of any logical explanation, for not correcting an accepted anomaly, from the date from which the anomaly occurred, we are constrained to quash para 2(iv) of the order dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure A/8) and direct the respondents to issue appropriate order, to make the additional fixed amount as mentioned in the said order, payable to the affected employees, from the respective dates on which the anomaly occurred. Needless to say, all the other conditions mentioned in Annexure-8, for qualifying for payment of additional fixed amount, will remain. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."

5. Petitioner-SAIL being aggrieved thereby by the impugned direction has approached this Court and inter-alia taken two-fold plea:

(I) that the cause of action raised by the applicant were barred by limitation prescribed under Section 21(1)

(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The

original application before learned CAT, Kolkata was also preferred after four months from the date of expiry of one year period calculated from the date of notification i.e. 29.12.2015. The cause of action raised by the applicants were not a continuing wrong since the grievances, if any, relating to their pay anomaly stood addressed by the notification dated 29.12.2015 and got crystalized. Learned CAT rejected the plea of limitation raised by the respondent-SAIL through their written statement, though no miscellaneous application was filed by the applicants seeking condonation of such delay, treating it to be a continuing cause of action.

In support of the plea, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 798 (Balkrishna Saqvalram Pujari Waghmare and Others versus Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and Others); 2008 8 SCC 648 (Union of India and Others versus Tarsem Singh) in particular.

(II) Petitioner has assailed the impugned order on merits on the following grounds

(i) that learned CAT failed to record a finding that the cut-off date 01.01.2016 fixed as per the notification dated 29.12.2015 was arbitrary.

(ii) No materials were placed by the applicants to show that fixation of such a cut-off date for grant of additional benefits in order to remove the anomaly was unreasonable or arbitrary.

(iii) Learned CAT also failed to address specific grounds urged in the written statement at Para-12 inter-alia that the two cadres of non-executive and executive are not comparable in terms of salary.

(iv) The overall pay of executives is not less than the non-executives.

(v) The wage/salary revisions are made as per DPE guidelines. The periodicity of pay revision is 5 years and 10 years respectively for non-executive and executive. Therefore their pay cannot be comparable. Unlikes cannot be treated alike.

(vi) Learned Tribunal also failed to take into note the plea raised at para-10 of the written statement that the company would be financially burdened by applying the notification with retrospective effect.

6. During course of his submission before us, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Indrajit Sinha has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. P. N. Puri and Others versus State of U.P. and Others reported in 1996 7 SCC 493 para-3 and State of Bihar and Others versus Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others)and (Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers & Assistant Engineers Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others) reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1527 para-19. It is submitted that the decision of the employer intended to redress a grievance of certain employees of the executive cadre relating to their salary, as compared to non-executive employees, implemented from a cut-off date 01.01.2016 ought not to have been interfered by the learned Tribunal since the issue of pay fixation/pay revision/removal of pay anomaly is within the domain of experts and any interference by writ court in such matters is likely to have cascading effect on other related services leading to multifarious litigation and impose huge financial burden which the organization may not be able to bear. Similar grievance may start arising from other units of SAIL. The impugned directions is therefore fit to be set-aside.

7. Learned senior counsel for the applicants/respondents has submitted that SAIL having consciously taken note of the grievances relating to pay anomaly of the employees belonging to 2008 and 2010 batch of the executive cadre compared to their junior in the non-executive cadre chose to issue the notification dated 29.12.2015 granting pay protection to the affected employees, but made it effective from 01.01.2016 though the pay anomaly arose after implementation of wage revision from 01.01.2012 to the non-executive cadre. Since the pay anomaly was not redressed completely, the cause of action raised by the applicants was continuing. Issuance of the notification dated 29.12.2015 did not redress the continuing wrong relating to pay anomaly which had arisen from 2012 onwards. Therefore, the plea of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not tenable in fact or in law.

Learned senior counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Others reported in 1995 5 SCC 628 and also in the case of Union of India & Others v. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 8 SCC 648. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not supported the plea of financial burden by bringing any materials on record as to what would be the financial impact on the payment of the additional benefit from the date the pay anomaly arose as per the directions of the learned CAT.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Silk Board vs. ZMS Khan & Others W.P.(C) No. 2503 of 2009 dated 27.03.2012 reported in 2012 SCC Online (Jhar) 381. She has referred to the order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11219 of 2012 dated 10.04.2013, wherein the Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition directed against the decision in the case of Central Silk Board. The Apex Court took into consideration the fact that the

financial implication on the petitioner organization was too meagre. Therefore, it was not inclined to exercise the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to annul the judgment. It is submitted that in similar manner the impugned direction can be limited to the applicants though the petitioner has not been able to show the exact financial burden that may arise on account of retrospective application of the notification dated 29.12.2015. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 7 SCC 123 in support of the submission that once the learned Tribunal has condoned the delay, if any, the superior court should not interfere in exercise of the discretion of the learned Tribunal unless it is shown to be perverse. Reliance is also placed upon decision of the Patna High Court reported in 1999 2 PLJR 895 on the plea of limitation.

8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have also taken note of relevant material facts borne from the pleading on record relied upon by the parties. In the conspectus of facts noted above, in order to appreciate the issue at hand, the relevant notification dated 29.12.2015 is extracted hereunder: -

"STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED No./PER/EC/1213 29TH December 2015 Head of Personnel of All Plants/Units Sub:- Anomaly in Pay of Junior Executives (JO) of 2010 Batch vis-à-vis Non executives (erstwhile batchmates) Dear Sir, Representations references have been received through various channels, on the issue of pay anomaly of Junior Officers (JO) of 2008 & 2010 batch vis-à-vis the non-executives (their erstwhile batchmates) for early rectification/settlement of anomalous situation.

The issue of pay anomaly for the aforesaid category of executives was examined keeping in view the need to settle the above anomalous situation of a peculiar nature wherein a Junior executive (JO of 2008 & 2010 batch) is presently drawing less salary (Basic + D.A.) compared to a non executive employee who is junior to him. Accordingly, the following methodology has been devised for addressing the issue.

i) In the context of aforementioned cases fulfilling the following conditions may be considered as a Pay Anomaly.

a) The affected executive (JO of 2008 & 2010 batch) is senior to the non executive employee with respect to whom the anomalous situation has arisen and is being claimed by the affected executive. The affected executive should have been an erstwhile batch- mate/senior in the non executive cadre. Also compared to the non executive, the affected executive had been drawing higher or equal basic pay in the non executive cadre.

b) The affected executive (JO of 2008 & 2010 batch) and the non executive with whom the affected executive is comparing himself for the purpose of establishing anomaly should belong to the same plant/Unit.

c) The affected executive (JO of 2008 & 2010 batch) and the non executive being compared with had the same channel of promotion when both of them were in non executive cadre.

ii) In order to address the above mentioned peculiar anomaly i.e. a senior employee (executive) presently drawing less salary (Basic + DA) then his erstwhile batch-mate/junior in non executive cadre, it is essential that the present day salary (Basic + DA) of the affected senior employee (executive) be made equal to the present salary (Basic + DA) of non executive.

iii) Accordingly, the difference between the present Salary (Basic + DA) of non executive employee and the affected executive employee shall be granted as an additional amount to the affected executive employee who has raised the anomaly. The said amount once fixed shall not undergo any subsequent upward revision."

The instant notification was issued to remove a peculiar anomaly between those employees promoted to executive cadre in 2008 and 2010 upon implementation of pay revision of the non-executive cadre after 5 years made effective from 01.01.2012 because the juniors of these promoted employees of executive cadre started getting more salary i.e. Basic + D.A. compared to them. The periodicity of pay revision of executive cadre is 10 years compared to 5 years of the non-executive cadre. The pay revision of the executive cadre was due from 01.01.2017. Comparison between the employees of non- executive cadre and the executive cadre in matters of fixations of pay, emoluments and other service conditions are farfetched as they belong to two different cadres having different duties and responsibilities, pay structure and promotional hierarchy.

9. Be that as it may, the employer-SAIL chose to address this peculiar pay anomaly by granting them additional benefits i.e. Basic + D.A. to address their grievances. However, the same

was made effective from 01.01.2016 vide notification dated 29.12.2015, though the anomaly purportedly arose on implementation of wage revision w.e.f. 01.01.2012 to the non- executive cadre. The wisdom of the employer to grant such additional benefit in order to remove this peculiar pay anomaly between the employees of executive cadre and that of non- executive cadre is not the question to be determined here. The employer chose to address the grievances of a particular section of the employees of executive cadre by granting them additional benefit to bring them at par within non-executive cadre employees junior to them by fixing a cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2016. The Annexure-R/3 to the counter-affidavit of the applicant/respondent herein dated 05.03.2019 i.e. circular No. 02 of 2019 indicates that in the event of salary revision w.e.f. 01.01.2017 such benefits granted to the executive cadre employees would get adjusted while arriving at the final decision based on such revision.

10. Applicant moved before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata and thereafter before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi being aggrieved with the fixation of the cut-off date. Their grievance was that the benefit should have been extended from the date the anomaly arose. However, the applicants failed to show as to why the fixation of cut-off date was arbitrary. Grant of pay revision or removal of anomaly is in the domain of employer as is well-settled by the decisions of the Apex Court. The principle in this regard as laid down in the case of Dr. P. N. Puri and Others versus State of U.P. and Others 1996 7 SCC 493 at para- 3 quoted hereunder: -

"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reason given by the respondents is not relevant since the Anomaly Committee recommended that they are performing the same duties on a par with the Medical Officers. Therefore, the High

Court ought to have granted them the scale of pay from 1986. As stated earlier, reasons given in the counter-affidavit may not be the correct reasons but the Anomaly Committee had recommended for payment of the same scale of pay to the persons like the petitioners w.e.f. 7-11-1994. It is well settled law that fixing a date is not arbitrary violating Article 14. It is settled law that the authorities cannot pick up from their hat and fix a date. The question, therefore, which arises for decision is: whether the date fixed is arbitrary? The question was referred to the Anomaly Committee to advise the Government as to the fixation of the scale of pay to which persons like the petitioners would be entitled to. The Committee had gone into the question and recommended the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000 to persons like the petitioners and also recommended to give effect from the date on which they had decided, namely 7-11-1994. The Government having accepted the same had given effect from that date. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that fixation of date is arbitrary violating Article 14."

(Underline supplied to add emphasis)

11. This proposition has been further reiterated in subsequent decisions, such as, in the case of Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India Vrs. R. Yadaih reported in (2001) 10 SCC 563 and followed in the case of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers & Assistant Engineers Association (supra) relied upon by the petitioner. Learned Tribunal however without holding the fixation of date as being arbitrary proceeded to quash that part of the order dated 29.12.2015 i.e. para-2(iv) while directing the respondent-SAIL to make payment of the additional amount to the affected employees from the respective date on which the anomaly occurred.

12. On the part of the applicants/respondents, a decision by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Central Silk Board has been cited in support. Further, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.04.2013 dismissing the Special Leave Petition has also been relied upon.

The Judgment dated 27.03.2012 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court were passed in the circumstances that the organization had recognized the scientific and technology organization on the report of the expert committee of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India and were accepted by Central Silk Board, but there were administrative delay in conferring the said benefits to certain persons like the applicants. As a result of the administrative delay, the scheme was made effective five years later w.e.f. 30.08.2006, whereas the date of the recognition was 30.04.2001. This was found to be without rational and lawful justification. The Apex Court declined to interfere in the impugned judgment by dismissing the Special Leave Petition also taking into consideration the fact that the financial implication on the petitioner organization was too meagre for it to exercise the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

In the facts of the present case, the petitioner SAIL after taking into account, the grievance of the applicant employees belonging to the executive cadre of 2008 and 2010 batch chose to issue the notification dated 29.12.2015 fixing a cut-off date 01.01.2016 for its implementation i.e. without any delay. The fixation of cut-off date has not been shown to be arbitrary before the learned Tribunal on the part of the applicants. Therefore, the case, at hand, is distinguishable on facts from that of the Central Silk Board.

It further appears from perusal of the order of the Apex Court dated 10.04.2013 that it was clarified that the order cannot be treated as a precedent in any other case. As such, respondent herein cannot be allowed to place reliance thereupon though while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court had left the question of law opened.

13. On the part of the applicants, it has been argued that the anomalies were noticed and addressed by the employer, but made effective from a prospective date rather than from the date the anomaly arose. Petitioner-SAIL also failed to bring on record any materials to show that the impugned directions entail huge financial burden which their employer was unable to sustain. We are, however, not impressed with this argument for the reason that interference in the fixation of cut-off date in the matter of implementation of pay revision by a writ court is uncalled for as prescriptions of pay-scales or pay revision or removal of pay anomaly are in the domain of experts which the courts of law are not equipped to deal with under powers of judicial review. Fixation of pay-scale or removal of pay anomaly also entails financial burden upon the employer which decision the employer is best placed to take. Neither did the applicants place any material to show arbitrariness in the fixation of cut-off dates nor did the learned Tribunal considered it proper to hold so while interfering in the decision of the employer-SAIL in granting the additional benefits from a prospective date. In the absence of such materials on record the order of the learned Tribunal stands vitiated in law and may cause a cascading effect on other related services in the organization and also give rise to litigations in other units of the SAIL with similar demands. This Court is therefore satisfied that the order of the learned Tribunal calls for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court.

14. Having held so, we are of the opinion that the question of limitation raised by the petitioner becomes secondary in the circumstances discussed above, though learned counsel for both the parties have made rival arguments on the point. As such, we are inclined to interfere in the impugned direction. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 09.01.2019 directing the

SAIL to make payment of additional fixed amount to the affected employees from the respective dates on which the anomaly occurred i.e. from a retrospective date, is set-aside. The writ petitions are allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Mukul