Kerala High Court
Hamsa.K.A vs Chairman And Managing Director,Indian ... on 8 November, 2024
1
W.P.(C) No.8872 of 2017
2024:KER:83705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8872 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 HAMSA.K.A,
AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED,
THATTANKATTIL HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM (BADGE NO.253,
RETIRED FROM MAINTENANCE SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGMANDAL)
2 LANEENDRAN .A.A
AGED 61, S/O. AYYAPPAN,
AMBAZHATHIL PARAMBU, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 161,
RETIRED FROM PACKING SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
3 V.M. MOHAMMED
AGED 74, S/O. MOIDEEN
VELIYATH KANAVARA HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 431,
RETIRED FROM PLANT SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
4 P.M.SALIM
AGED 63, S/O.MOIDEEN,
MADAKKAKATH HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 159,
RETIRED FROM STORE SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
5 ADRU.M
AGED 63, S/O.ANGARA
2
W.P.(C) No.8872 of 2017
2024:KER:83705
MANU NIVAS, PAIVALIKE.P.O
UPPALA (VIA) KASARGOD DISTRICT (B.NO.803,
RETIRED FROM PLANT SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
6 MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
AGED 66, S/O.GOVINDAPILLA,
ASWATHI BHAVAN, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 520,
RETIRED AS DRIVER, I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
7 A.M.MUSTHAFA
AGED 61, S/O. MUHAMMED,
AMMANAM KUZHI HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 535,
RETIRED FROM WORKSHOP SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
8 HAMSA.M.K
AGED 69, S/O. KOCHUNNI
MANNANTHARA HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 154,
RETIRED FROM PLANT SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
9 THAHA.K.K
AGED 68,S/O.KUNJUMON
PALLIMUTTATHU HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 152,
RETIRED FROM STORE SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
10 M.A.KUNJUPENNU
AGED 64, W/O.A.IYYER
THAIVELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O. ERNAKULAM (B.NO. 84,
RETIRED FROM DRIVER SECTION,
I.R.E UDYOGAMANDAL)
3
W.P.(C) No.8872 of 2017
2024:KER:83705
BY ADVS.
K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
S.JESSIN
K.S.MIZVER
P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
M.M.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD
1207 VEER SARVARKAR MARG. NEAR SIDH VINAYAK
TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400028
2 GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED,
UDYOGAMANDAL UNIT,
UDYOGAMANDAL P.O.-683 501
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SMT.POOJA MENON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
W.P.(C) No.8872 of 2017
2024:KER:83705
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8872 of 2017
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioners point out that they were working with the
Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a company of which the 1st
respondent is the Chairman and Managing Director, and the 2nd
respondent is the General Manager. The petitioners point out
that they were in service during 1997 to 2016. The petitioners
in this writ petition essentially challenge Ext.P1 Post Retirement
Medical Scheme, 2007 (PRMS) as also Ext.P3, the reply given
to Ext.P2 representation.
2. The petitioners point out with reference to Ext.P1
that the company framed PRMS, as per which there is
substantial disparity as regards the reimbursement entitlement
for the workmen in comparison to the officers. In Ext.P1, as
regards the hospital charges which could be reimbursed, as
regards workmen and staff who are covered under the long
term settlement, the maximum amount of reimbursement is
Rs.1.5 lakhs, whereas for officers in the category of Deputy
2024:KER:83705
Officers up to Senior Managers, the maximum amount of
reimbursement is Rs.2 lakhs, and as regards the officers in the
grade of Deputy General Manager and above, it is Rs.3.50 lakhs.
3. I have heard Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned
counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Pooja Menon, the learned
counsel for the respondents herein.
4. Sri.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, would point out with reference to the difference in
the eligibility for reimbursement that there is discrimination
between workmen and officers. He would also make reference
to the judgment of the Apex Court in D.S.Nakara v. Union of
India [1983 (1) SCC 305] as well as the State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [AIR 1952 SC 75]. He would
also point out with reference to the document at Annexure A -
the revised scheme of medical attendance for the employees of
the R.E. division of the respondent company, that while
petitioners were in service, they were being treated at par with
the officers, and the only differentiation was with reference to
the room rent. Therefore, he points out that, on the basis of
Annexure A, there was no requirement or basis for taking a
2024:KER:83705
differential treatment while issuing Ext.P1.
5. Per contra, Smt.Pooja, the learned counsel for the
respondents, would point out that the writ petition is filed after
an inordinate delay of around ten years insofar as the PRMS was
framed during 2007 and the writ petition is filed during 2017.
She points out that the scheme is in operation from 2007
onwards, and therefore the scheme itself has worked
effectively, and there is no reason for the petitioners to have
challenged the same. She further points out that, if at all there
is any differential treatment, that is only because the workmen
and the officers are engaged in different duties in the
respondent company. She also points out that the PRMS is an
insurance-based reimbursement system wherein, as regards
officers, they have been contributing towards the insurance
premium payable, and as regards the workmen, the insurance
premium is not being contributed by them along with the
respondent company. She also points out that PRMS being a
policy matter, this Court need not interfere. She relied on the
following judgments of the Apex Court;
i. Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power
2024:KER:83705
Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Ram Gopal [2020
SCC OnLine SC 101]
ii. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. V.
Sarat Chandra Rath and Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 2744]
6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the
connected records.
7. The dispute in this writ petition is essentially as
regards the differential treatment as pointed out by the
petitioners with reference to Ext.P1 - PRMS. A perusal of Ext.P1
would show that the employees of the company - workmen /
officers are entitled for reimbursement as regards the room rent
as well as the treatment expenditure. Even as regards room
rent, there is a difference in the various amounts to be
reimbursed to the employees - workmen / officers. In the same
fashion, as regards the reimbursement towards the medical
expenses, there is a difference in the various amounts to be
reimbursed by the company. In this connection, I notice the
judgment of the Apex Court in Fertilizer Corporation of India
Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarat Chandra Rath and Ors. [AIR 1996
SC 2744] wherein the Apex Court has laid down following
2024:KER:83705
principles; para 20 to 22.
"20. From the aforesaid it is clear that the two categories
of Junior foreman (W) were dealt with by two different sets
of rules because as on 1st January, 1987 they were not
similarly situate. Whereas the respondents herein were
Assistant Foremen, those who were placed in the officers'
grade prior to 1st January, 1987 were regarded as officers.
There could thus be no comparison between these two
categories of persons. These two categories were unequal
and respondents could not, in law, make any grievance if
different principles were adopted in the fixation of their
respective pay scales.
21. The effect of the High Court Judgment is that the
fixation of pay of post 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen
(W) like the respondents in the revised officers' pay scales
has been done on the basis of their revised grade of Rs.
1580 - 2842. On the other hand the fixation of pay of pre
1st January, 1987 Junior Foreman (W) has been done on
the basis of unrevised officers' grade of Rs. 960-1610 after
giving them a fitment of Rs. 400. The direction to grant the
additional fitment benefit of Rs.400 to the post 1st January,
1987 Junior Foremen (w), whose pay has been revised on
the basis of the grade of Rs. 1580 - 2842, would result in
an undue and unjust double advantage being given to the
respondents herein. There would, in effect, be a reverse
discrimination inasmuch as if the judgment of the High
Court is given effect to then the respondents would get
more emoluments than their seniors who were placed in
2024:KER:83705
the officers scale prior to 1st January, 1987. It has been
rightly contended on behalf of the appellants that the High
Court's judgment will result in the treatment of the
unequals as equals, which was clearly not contemplated.
22. Apart from the fact that these two classes of
employees are different and are governed by different
rules, it is open to the State or the appellants to change
the conditions of service unilaterally. As observed in
the State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Ratan Behari Dey
and Ors. MANU/SC/0555/1993 :[1993] 4 SCC 63 "the
employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries
and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary
benefits. The power to specify a date from which the
revision of pay scales of or terminal benefits/pensionary
benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a
concomitant of the said power. So long as such date is
specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing
about a discrimination between similarly situated persons
no interference is called for by the court in that behalf." In
the present case the ruled regarding fixation of pay of the
officers and of the workers were different. With effect from
1st January,1987, therefore, fresh fixation had to take
place. Workers and officers belong to two different and
distinct classes. The respondents who were not officers as
on 1st January,1987 could not claim parity with the persons
who were in the category of officers as on that date. This
being so the appellants could fix the pay scale of worker on
his appointment after 1st January, 1987 in the officer class
on a principle different than one which was adopted in
2024:KER:83705
revising the pay of an officer who was adopted in revising
the pay of an officer who was in position as on 1st January,
1987. Whereas with regard to the respondents it would be
a case of initial fixation of their salaries on their placement
in the officers' grade, in the case of pre 1st January, 1987
Junior Foremen it would be a matter of revision of their
salaries in the same grade. It was open to the appellants
to follow different principles in these two cases."
A perusal of the afore would show that there can be
differentiation as regards the categories of workmen. That was
a case wherein the category of junior foremen was considered
with reference to assistant foremen. Ultimately, the Apex Court
found that those two categories were unequal, and therefore,
the differentiation pointed out cannot be challenged on the
ground of discrimination. In the case at hand, the petitioners
point out with reference to the alleged discrimination with
reference to the workmen qua the officers. I notice that even
while the petitioners were in service, their consideration as
regards the various duties undertaken by them were totally
different in comparison to the officers. Their salary was also
different from the officers. In Annexure B also, as regards room
rent, there was a differentiation as regards the room rent
2024:KER:83705
payable. It is only the same yardsticks that are being applied in
Ext.P1 - PRMS, as regards the reimbursement against hospital
expenses being incurred by the employees (workmen/officers).
Furthermore, I take note of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have not been
contributing to the insurance premium payable as against the
premium payable for the insurance based PRMS (Ext.P1). The
judgments relied on from the side of the petitioners may not be
applicable to the case at hand since, as found above, the
workmen/officers cannot be treated as forming the same class.
So much so, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may not be
entitled for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition on the
ground of discrimination alleged as above.
Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
2024:KER:83705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8872/2017
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE "POST RETIREMENT MEDICAL
SCHEME, 2007 INTRODUCED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT REPRESENTATION
SIGNED BY 23 PERSONS, INCLUDING THE
PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT SENT ON
14.10.2016 WITH COPY TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-04-2017
BEARING NO.HRM(PR)/PRMS-17-18.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09-09-2017
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEARING
NO.RTIA-2005/1089/17
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A MEDICAL ATTENDANCE SCHEME DATED
04.12.1986
Annexure B LETTER DATED 14.10.2010 NOTIFYING
APPLICABLE ROOM RENT
Annexure C LETTER DATED 12.04.2012 NOTIFYING REVISED
APPLICABLE ROOM RENT
