Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 860 (DEL)

BALCO EMPLOYIS UNION (REGD. ) v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-03-02

Vikramajit Sen

body2001
Vikramajit Sen ( 1 ) THE present writ petition appears to have been necessitated because the respondents had not granted pay, allowances and perquisites to the petitioners. It was in this context that the first prayer in the writ petition was pressed before me. It reads as under: " (I) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to implement Justice- s. Mohan Committee report as per the decision taken vide office memorandum No. 2 (49) /98-DPE (WC) dated 25. 6. 1999 with regard to balco". ( 2 ) THE contention of Mr. Viraj R. Datar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, is that the petition ought to be disposed of forthwith since the reliefs claimed for by the petitioners have already been granted. He submits that it has been clarified in the Office Memorandum dated 27. 3. 2000 that the HRA / Leased accommodation/rent recovery and CCA would be computed on revised basic pay from the date of implementation of the guidelines i. e. the date of issue of Presidential directive revising the pay scales. His further contention is that Office Memorandum no. 2 (49)/98-DPE (WC) dated 25. 6. 1999 had been extended to the petitioners vide presidential Directive dated 3. 8. 2000, the salient portion of which is reproduced below: "government of India ministry of Mines 18/2/99-Met-I New Delhi, the 3. 8. 2000 order the scale of pay of incumbents of the Board level and below Board level executives of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (BALCO) were last revised by the Covernment w. e. f. 1. 1. 1992. Government have now decided that the pay revision and other benefits for these executives w. e. f. 1. 1. 1997 may be implemented through Presidential Directives. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 114 of Articles of Associations of Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. , the President is pleased to direct the BALCO that the approved pay scales, fitment formula, DA guidelines and ceiling on perquisites for Board level and below Board level executives in terms of DPE s om No. 2 (49)/98-DPE (WC) dated 25. 6. 1999 may be implemented w. e. f. 1. 1. 1997. Ltd. , the President is pleased to direct the BALCO that the approved pay scales, fitment formula, DA guidelines and ceiling on perquisites for Board level and below Board level executives in terms of DPE s om No. 2 (49)/98-DPE (WC) dated 25. 6. 1999 may be implemented w. e. f. 1. 1. 1997. sd/- (Alok Sheel) director even in respect of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme Government s approval had been accorded, which is perhaps the reason why this relief in the writ petition has not been pressed. It reads as follows: "government of India ministry of Mines no. 18 (l)/99-Met. I New Delhi, dated 8. 8. 2000 to, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Aluminium Sadan, Lodi Road, New Delhi. Subject: Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Sir, i am directed to refer to your letter No. HO/ir/i (115)/2000 dated 8. 6. 2000 on the above subject and to convey the approval of the Government for introduction of revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme in Bharat Aluminium company Limited. It may be ensured that the Scheme should be implemented strictly in accordance with the provisions set out in the DEP s Office Memorandum no. 2 (32)/97-DPE (WC) dated 5. 5. 2000. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Rakesh Bhartiya) dy. Secretary to the Government of India" ( 3 ) DR. A. M. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, however, vehemently argued that the prayers contained in the petition have only been partially met and, therefore, the petition ought not to be disposed of, since the pay and allowances have not been granted to the petitioners with effect from 1. 1. 1997. It is further contended that no reasons had been disclosed why the benefits were not granted from this date. Relying on the Additional Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 he has submitted that since there was a difference in the date from which pay and allowances were made applicable in the case of ONGC, NTPC and nhpc, there is a palpable violation, inter alia, of Article 14 of the Constitution. He, therefore, sought leave to permit the petitioners to amend the writ petition so as to assail the circular dated 17. 8. 2000 informing that the revised rates of HRA and CCA shall be payable with effect from 1. 8. 2000, which circular is in violation of the presidential Directive dated 3. 8. 2000. He, therefore, sought leave to permit the petitioners to amend the writ petition so as to assail the circular dated 17. 8. 2000 informing that the revised rates of HRA and CCA shall be payable with effect from 1. 8. 2000, which circular is in violation of the presidential Directive dated 3. 8. 2000. Prima jade, however, there appears to be little room to make the payment of HRA and CCA applicable with effect from the date of the Presidential Directive, i. e. , 1. 8. 2000, when this Directive itself states the date of implementation to be 1,1. 1997. . ( 4 ) I am of the view that the interest of justice do not call for amplifying and enlarging the scope of the present writ petition. In the Additional Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it has been stated that these respondents are "willing to submit the case relating to extension of benefits such as HRA and CCA in the case of BALCO Employees Union w. e. f. 1. 1. 1997 instead of 1. 8. 2000, to the concerned department i. e. the Department of Public Enterprises and shall give effect to whatever decision is taken by the said Department". Mr. Sumant Batra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 had also joined respondents 1 to 3 in this submission and had stated that this action would be taken. In these circumstances, since the interest of the petitioners is quite apparently being looked after, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition forthwith. The sweep of this writ petition would change totally inasmuch as the scope of scrutiny would shift also to considerations centring upon the question whether the petitioners have been treated in a manner different to other officers of other Public Sector Undertakings such as ONGC, NTPC, NHPC, etc. In the Additional Affidavit the respondents 1 to 3 have stated that they are not aware of the reasons which have prevailed upon the concerned authorities to fix different effective dates in respect of ONGC, NTPC, nhpc, etc. The disposal of the writ petition will not tantamount to any expression on the correctness or otherwise of the decision that these benefits would be made applicable with effect from the date of the issue of the Presidential Directive. This exercise shall be completed on or before 30/04/2001. The disposal of the writ petition will not tantamount to any expression on the correctness or otherwise of the decision that these benefits would be made applicable with effect from the date of the issue of the Presidential Directive. This exercise shall be completed on or before 30/04/2001. With the above observations the petition is disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of .