Doiwala Sugar Co. Ltd vs Rama Herald & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 486 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Doiwala Sugar Co. Ltd vs Rama Herald & Others on 3 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                 2025:UHC:4452-DB


             Special Appeal No. 330 of 2018

Doiwala Sugar Co. Ltd.                            ... Appellant

                             Versus

Rama Herald & Others                          ... Respondents

     Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, for the appellant.
     Mr. D.S. Bora, Standing Counsel, for the State.
     Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate, i/b Mr. M.C. Pant,
     Advocate for the respondent no. 1 and 2.


                        JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application (CLMA 6106/2018), the same is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

2. Doiwala Sugar Co. Ltd. has filed this intra- Court appeal challenging the judgment dated 17.2.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (SS) No. 349 of 2011. Impugned judgment is reproduced below:

"The petitioners were appointed as Teachers in Junior High School run by the then Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. The Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. was taken over by the State Government. Now, it is owned and controlled by the State Government. The pay-scale of the petitioners was not revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and thereafter 01.01.1996. The petitioners made representation for the release of revised pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and thereafter, to be revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the

2025:UHC:4452-DB Executive Director vide letter dated 30.01.2009.

In sequel to the recommendation made by the Executive Director, the payscale of the petitioners has been revised vide letter dated 23.02.2011 w.e.f. 28.01.2011. This has been done on the basis of conscious decision taken by the Management as per the recommendation made by the Executive Director.

The Court is of the considered view that the pay-scale of the petitioner should have been revised from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.1986, thereafter, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 28.01.2011. Moreover, the petitioner submits that similarly situated persons have been granted the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and thereafter, revised on 01.01.1996.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and further revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996 within a period of ten weeks from today."

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the school, in question, in which respondent no. 1 and 2 were serving as Teacher, was not getting any financial aid from State Govt. and it was being run by the sugar mill from its own resources and now it is closed since last two years. He further submits that both respondent no. 1 and 2 retired from service in 2012. He submits that the finding returned by learned Single Judge that respondent no. 1 and 2 are entitled for pay revision from due date, i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.1.1996, is unsustainable as there was no legal basis for writ petitioners to stake claim for pay revision with effect from those particular dates. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that view

2025:UHC:4452-DB taken by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is contrary to the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 1374 of 2001. The judgment rendered in the said writ petition is extracted below:

"1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus to command the respondents to pay the salary to the School Staff working in the Primary & Junior High Schools of Chini Mill Doiwala run by respondent no. 2 in the interest of its business so that the Sugar Factory may give better facilities to its staff for providing education to their children.

2- It is settled legal position that the Educational Societies which are providing education to the children and are getting salary on the pay scale, mandamus can be issued to them as they discharge the public function but so for a writ of mandamus for implementing the revised pay scale is concerned, it falls within the total domain of the Company considering its financial position either to implement the revised pay scale or not. Since the discretion is vested on the Company in this matter either to implement the revised pay scale or not, no mandamus can be issued to exercise its discretion. It is settled law that no writ can be issued to exercise the discretion.

3- Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, No order as to costs."

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that claim for pay revision cannot be allowed in the absence of any policy decision taken by the employer for grant of revised pay scale from a particular date. He further submits that grant of revised pay scale entails financial liability, therefore the financial condition of the employer has also to be considered. He further submits that learned Single Judge has not considered the averment made in para 2(j) of the counter affidavit, where it is stated

2025:UHC:4452-DB that Doiwala Sugar Company is running into losses and the total loss incurred by the sugar company till filing of counter affidavit in July, 2011 was more than 72 crores.

5. We find substance in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. It is not the case of the writ petitioners (respondent no. 1 and 2 herein) that there was policy decision by the employer to grant them benefit of pay revision from 1986 and 1996 and thereafter the employer backed out from this decision. In the absence of any pleading in the writ petition to this effect, the direction to revise the pay scale from 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 is, therefore, unsustainable.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we modify the impugned judgment and direct Chief Executive Director, Uttarakhand Cooperative Sugar Mills Federation Ltd., Dehradun to examine the claim of respondent no. 1 and 2 for pay revision from due date and take decision, as per law and applicable policy, within ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

7. Special appeal stands disposed of.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

3.6.2025 Pr

PRABODH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3ae

KUMAR ab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052D F6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.08 15:00:04 +05'30'