Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Sri B N Srinivasa
2022 Latest Caselaw 12158 Kant

                          1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

          WRIT APPEAL NO.546/2022(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA
       LIMITED, VISVESVARYA IRON
       & STEEL PLANT
       BHADRAVATHI - 577 301
       SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
       NOW REPRESENTED BY
       GENERAL MANAGER (IC) (P & A)
       SRIP.P. CHAKRABARTY.

2.     THE CHAIRMAN
       STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDAI
       LTD., ISPAT BHAVAN
       LODHI ROAD
       NEW DELHI - 110 003
       REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA
       HOLDER, MR.S.B. MATHUR.         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI S.N. MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV.)

AND:

SRI B.N. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O NAGARAJA
                             2

DOOR NO.DC -2B, BUNGALOW
NEAR VISL GUEST HOUSE
NEW TOWN BHADRAVATI - 577 301
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT.                         ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.N. SREENIVASA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
PASSED IN W.P.NO.1347/2022 DATED 24.05.2022 AND
CONSEQUENTLY     DISMISS    THE   WRIT   PETITION
NO.1347/2022 AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR               PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH                 SHETTY J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.1347/2022.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellants, respondent who has appeared in

person and also perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this

appeal stated in brief are, the respondent was appointed

as a 'Stenographer' in A-2 Grade on 02.04.1977 at

Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant, Bhadravathi which

was subsequently taken over by the Steel Authority of

India. The appellants had introduced 'Stagnation

Promotion Scheme' which envisaged that an employee

who had completed ten years of service without any

promotion was entitled to be promoted to the next higher

grade pay scale within Non-Executive Cadre treating the

same as 'Personal Grade'. Accordingly, the respondent

along with others who had completed ten years of service

in A-3/S-8 and A-4/S-9 Grade and who were eligible for

admission of Personal Grade Promotion were granted the

higher pay scale in E-0 Grade with effect from

01.05.2002 and pay fixation and other benefits related to

E-0 Executive Grade with effect from 01.05.2002 was

extended to the respondent as per Annexure-F. The

name of the respondent is found at Sl.No.11 in the office

order dated 02.05.2002 of the appellants which

enumerates the list of employees who had completed

ten years of satisfactory service in S-8 and S-9 and who

were extended 'E-0 grade' as 'personal grade' with effect

from 01.05.2002 as per the Rules.

4. Though the respondent was subsequently

promoted to S-10 and S-11 grade, his pay scale and

monetary benefits continued as E-0 Executive Grade and

therefore, the respondent had sought for extension of

perquisites and allowance at the rate of 46% revised

Basic Pay as was being paid to the Executives with effect

from 05.10.2009. It is under these circumstances he had

filed W.P.No.9134/2011 which was allowed by this Court

on 20.07.2017 and by virtue of the said order, appellants

were directed to reconsider the representation of the

respondent and to extend the benefits of admissible

"perquisites and allowances" and PRP applicable to EO

original grade with effect from 05.10.2009 as per the

office order dated 29.12.2009.

5. The grievance of the respondent as regards

drawing less salary than his juniors was kept open with

liberty to the respondent to file fresh representation

seeking to step up his pay on par with his juniors. The

said order was questioned by the appellants in

W.A.No.5452/2017 C/w W.A.No.5453/2017, which was

disposed of vide order dated 26.02.2020, which reads as

follows:-

"JUDGMENT

Both these appeals were heard at length. When the matters are listed today, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the relief has been granted to various other workmen to the effect of granting revised perquisites and allowances as applicable to S11 Grade. On instructions, the learned Counsel for the appellants undertakes that the respondents- workmen will be given the revised perquisites *allowances, gratuity, exgratia and pay revision benefits as applicable to workmen".

2. The said submission of the appellants' Counsel is accepted by the learned Counsel for the respondents- workmen.

3. In view of the undertaking of the appellants' Counsel, the appeals are disposed off accordingly."

6. The respondent had accepted the stand of

the appellants that he would be granted benefit as

applicable to S-11 grade and that revised perquisites,

allowances, exgratia and pay revision benefit as

applicable to others would be given to him as undertaken

by the Management. However, the appellant re-fixed the

pay scale which had the effect of altering the payment

from January 2007. It is under these circumstances,

respondent had filed W.P.No.1347/2022 contending that

he is entitled to enhanced S-11 pay scale as is applicable

from 01.01.2012 from which date S-11 pay scale became

higher than the E-0 pay scale. It is the specific case of

the respondent that the appellants/Management is bound

by their undertaking given in the earlier round of

litigation and therefore S-11 pay scale ought to have

been given to him from 2012 onwards.

7. The learned Single Judge vide the order

impugned has allowed the writ petition and has held that

the respondent is entitled to enhanced benefit applicable

to S-11 with effect from 01.01.2012 and also granted all

consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the said

order, this intra court appeal is filed.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants submits that the respondent was working in S-

11 grade from 30.06.2008 till his retirement and

therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in

directing fixation of pay in S-11 grade only from

01.01.2012. He submits that the respondent cannot

approbate and reprobate disowning the liability and claim

only the benefits when the respondent has agreed for the

pay fixation and other perquisites and allowances in S-11

grade. He submits that the respondent's pay in executive

scale was higher compared to S-11 grade and the

learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect

of the matter.

9. Per contra, the respondent has argued in

support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge

and has prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. It is not in dispute that in earlier round of

litigation the appellants had given an undertaking in

W.A.No.5454/2017 and on the submission of the

appellants that they were willing to extend the benefit as

was extended to other workmen in the order passed in

W.A.No.5452/2017 c/w W.A.No.5453/2017 disposed of

on 26.02.2020 even W.A.No.5454/2017 was disposed of

on 03.06.2021. The stand of the appellants is recorded

at paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the order dated 03.06.2021,

which reads as follows:

"4.Sri Somashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of S.N.Murhty associates would submit that appellant is willing to extend similar benefits to the respondent in this appeal as was extended to the respondents in W.A.Nos.5452/2017 c/w 5453/2017 as ordered on 26.02.2020 and amended on 20.08.2020. His submission and undertaking is placed on record.

5.He would also submit that benefits which were extended to the respondents therein

would also be extended to the present respondent in this appeal and prays for reasonable time to process the claim of the respondent."

11. The learned Single Judge having appreciated

this aspect of the matter at paragraph Nos.19, 20 and 21

has observed as follows:

"19. What must be noted is, even in the writ appeal, disposal of the writ appeal was while recording the undertaking of the respondents- Authority that revised perquisites and allowances as applicable to S-11 grade would be made good to the workmen. There is ambiguity insofar as respondents' case is concerned as there is no express reservation of right in the said order so as to offset the pay scale prior to 01.01.2012. What needs to be noted is that the writ appeal came to be disposed off without setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The undertaking in the writ appeal if read with the factum of non- disturbing of the order of the learned Single Judge would lead to the conclusion that the change in the pay scale of the petitioner to S-11 grade would only be prospective. It is also admitted that the difference in pay scale between E-0 and S-11 came to be altered to the advantage of the petitioner (who though was working in S-11 grade was being paid E-0 pay scale) for the first time when there was an increase in the salary of the workmen of S-11 grade only from 01.01.2012. It ought to be noted that admittedly the petitioner who was working in non-executive cadre and was promoted to S-8 and S-9 was granted higher pay scale in E-0 grade with effect from 01.05.2002 and was granted the same pay protection of E-0 till he was promoted to S-10 and S-11. It was only with the revision of pay scale of S-11 grade in which the petitioner was working from 2012 that the pay scale of S-11 was much more that E-0. In light of the same, the petitioner willingly accepted the payment to S-11 as revised, and obviously the election to accept revised S-11 was only from 01.01.2012 from which date the pay scale of S-11 became more than E-0. Till such

date of 01.01.2012 the petitioner pay was at E-0 scale which was made applicable to the non- executive cadre of the petitioner which he had enjoyed. There is no warrant to construe that the petitioner had given up the benefit under E-0 pay scale for a period prior to 01.01.2012.

20. The respondents- Authority are bound by their undertaking as reflected in the order of the writ appeals and in the absence of any clarity relating to adjustment of benefit for the period prior to 01.01.2012, Management not having been granted such liberty while disposing off the writ appeals, Management is bound by the their undertaking to the effect, that S-11 pay scale enhanced from 01.01.2012 would be made good to the petitioner, which the petitioner has accepted. There is no other manner of construing the undertaking of Management as the petitioner was satisfied with E-0 grade pay scale till 01.01.2012 and it is only from such date the pay scale of the workmen of S-11 was admittedly higher than that of E-0 grade pay scale.

21. As noticed above, in the absence of any clarification reserving rights to the Management to unsettle the pay scale for the period prior to 2012, the Management is bound by the undertaking/understanding that payment of S-11 pay scale would be effected only after 01.01.2012."

12. The appellants are bound by this undertaking

given before this Court in the earlier round of litigation

and they have no right to unsettle the pay scale for a

period prior to 2012 as rightly observed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, we do not find any

illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by

the learned Single Judge which is assailed in this appeal.

Accordingly, we decline to entertain this appeal and

therefore, the same is dismissed.

SD/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE

NMS