Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.09.1992 and to command the opposite parties to pay salary of the Personnel Officer to the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited on the post of Personnel Officer since December, 1977 and since then he has been holding the post of Personnel Officer continuously. After the appointment on the post of Personnel Officer, he came out of the purview of the Sugar Wage Board constituted by the Central Government as there is no post of Personnel Officer in any of the Sugar Wage Board. The Management of the Corporation had issued an Office Memorandum fixing pay-scales of it's officers and the pay-scale of the Personnel Officer had been given at serial no.28 of the statement regarding the revision of pay-scales. The petitioner demanded the pay-scale of Personnel Officer but he was denied. Being aggrieved, he has filed a writ petition No.5682 of 1986 in which the mandamus was issued to consider the case of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the case of the petitioner was considered by the opposite parties but has rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 02.09.1992. In the order dated 02.09.1992, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is being paid the Supervisory A-II pay-scale while there is no post of Personnel Officer in the Sugar Wage Board. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 02.09.1992 passed by the opposite party no.2.
With this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Personnel Officer, therefore, he should be given the Pay-scale of the Personnel Officer as provided in the statement of the pay-scales of the Corporation. It has also been submitted that since the petitioner had worked as Personnel Officer and had retired as such, therefore, he is entitled for the pay-scale of the Personnel Officer. He has also submitted that the opposite party no.2 has created artificial division among the Personnel Officers of the Corporation in order to deprive the pay-scale to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the pay-scale of the Personnel Officer because he was never absorbed in the pay-scales of the Corporation nor he was ever placed in the Corporation's pay-scales. The petitioner was called for interview along with other factory workers for his consideration for placement in the Corporation's pay-scales but he was not found fit to be placed in the Corporation's pay-scale of Assistant Grade Officer. Therefore, the petitioner could not compete with others for his placement in Assistant Officer's grade of the Corporation. Thus, there is no question for allowing him the pay-scale over and above the Assistant Grade Officers of the Corporation and the entire claim of the petitioner is misconceived as merely by grant of designation, as Personnel Officer, the petitioner is not entitled for the pay-scale of Personnel Officers. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay-scales of the Corporation because he was governed by the pay-scale fixed by the Wage Board of the Central Government.
The petitioner had filed a writ petition No.5682 of 1986, which was decided on 28.04.1992 in which the following order was passed :
"The petitioner, who was working as Personnel Officer at Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd., Ghazipur and was posted to the Rampur Unit as Personnel Officer on same emoluments. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being paid the same salary, which is payable, which is payable to Personnel Officer and in this regard attention of this Court has been drawn to serial no.28 of Annexure 4, according to which the revised pay-scales of Personnel Officer is Rs.900-40-1100-50-1350-60-1770. There exists no reason as to why the petitioner, if he has been working on the post Personnel Officer, be not paid the same scale.
In view of what has been indicated herein above, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of the revised pay-scale as contained in item no. 28 of the statement regarding provisions of pay-scale of Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited (Non Wages Board Employees) and pass appropriate order within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner on the opposite parties, is issued. However, no order is made as to costs."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Managing Director and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 02.09.1992. The main ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was that the petitioner was initially appointed as Cashier in Kichcha Sugar Mill, thereafter, he was appointed as Office Superintendent in the year 1973. The nomenclature of the said post was changed to Assistant Administrative Officer in the year 1976 and again as Store Officer and accordingly he was provided the pay-scale of Supervisory A-II as per the recommendation of the Wage Board. In the year 1977, he was transferred from Kichcha Sugar Mill to Nandganj Sugar Mill and the nomenclature of the post of Store Officer was changed to Personnel Officer. The petitioner was basically governed by the Wage Board. He was afforded the opportunity for appearing in the interview with other factory workers for absorption in the pay-scales of the Corporation but the petitioner could not succeed and was not found fit. The petitioner was working as Personnel Officer at Kichcha Sugar Mill while the pay-scale of Personnel Officer is admissible to the Personnel Officer working at Head Quarter because the Personnel Officer of one Sugar Mill looks after the work of said Sugar Mill while the Personnel Officer posted at Head Quarter supervise the work of 35 Sugar Mills. Therefore, he is not entitled to the pay-scale of the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others vs. Pijush Kanti Das and another; (1996) 7 SCC 266 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The learned counsel for the appellant apart from bringing it to our notice the Notification of the Governor dated 21st of December, 1983 to which reference has already been made also brought to our notice two circulars namely Circular No. 31 of 1985-86 as well as Circular No. 35 of 1985-86 which squarely deals with the dispute with regard to the fixation of pay scales. Under Circular No. 31 dated 29th June, 1985 it has been clearly indicated that the officers and the employees including the labour staff of the three units viz. Jadhavpur, South Suburban and Garden Reach (erstwhile municipalities) who were in service of the municipalities on 3.1.1984 and also those who have been appointed thereafter in the pay scales of the Units and are continuing in service till date be placed in the comparable posts and pay-scales under Calcutta Municipal Corporation as indicated by designations and pay scales under Annexure - A, B & C respectively for Jadhavpur, South Suburban and Garden Reach Units with effect from 1st day of July, 1985 subject to exercising option by individual employee to come under the recommended designations and pay scales whom in the Annexure - A, B & C. So far as the respondent is concerned who was earlier serving as 'Education Incharge' under Garden Reach Municipality approved designation was Education Officer 'Unit' and his pay scale fixed at 610 - 1270. The Circular No. 35 of 1985-86 which was issued on 7th August, 1985 pursuant to the order of the Administrator had been issued as there had been certain changes in designation and/or pay scales in respect of certain posts under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation between the period from 4.1.1984 to 30.6.1985. Even in that Circular while fixing of pay of employees in comparable posts, so far as the post of erstwhile 'Education Incharge' in Garden Reach Municipality, the same has been notified and pay scale of 500 - 1360 has been given with the designation of Education Officer 'Unit'. But the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the Education Officer 'Unit' discharges the same functions and duties as Education Officer of the Municipal Corporation had directed the Corporation grant him the pay scale of 660 - 1600 as is admissible to the Education Officer of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The Division Bench has also affirmed the said decision having examined the matter on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties. We unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed gross error in directing the Corporation to grant the pay scale of 660 - 1600 to the respondent. There is no manner of dispute that before the merger, the respondent as Education Incharge under the Garden Reach Municipality was drawing the pay scale of 380 - 910 which was much less than the pay scale of Asst. Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. After the merger of the Garden Reach Municipality with Calcutta Municipal Corporation the question arose fro posting the employees of the erstwhile municipality against any comparable post. Circular No. 31 had been issued and rightly the respondent had been granted the pay scale with the designation as Education Officer 'Unit'. In complete ignorance of the aforesaid Circular the High Court appears to have granted the pay scale of 660 - 1600 to the respondent which is admissible to the post of Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. By such direction not only the respondent has been given promotion by two hierarchy but also would march over the other Deputy Education Officers under the Corporation. Taking into account the pay which the respondent was getting in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and his nature of duties, fixing of his pay comparable to the Asst. Education Officer by application of Circular No. 31 can neither be said to be arbitrary nor irrational, on the other hand the decision contained therein must be held to be wholly justified. The High Court on the other hand failed to consider the pay scale which the respondent was drawing in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and the duties discharged by him thereunder and merely from the designation of Education Officer jumped to the conclusion that the respondent should be entitled to the same pay scale as is admissible to the Education Officer under the Corporation. The aforesaid conclusion of the High Court on inaccurate premises, and on non consideration of the relevant materials as well as the Circular No. 31 of 1985-86 is thus vitiated and the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench has become vulnerable. In the circumstances we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition filed by the respondent stand dismissed. This appeal is allowed. No costs."
It is not disputed that the petitioner has never been posted as Personnel Officer at Head Quarter. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had worked at different sugar mills in the capacity of Personnel Officer. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was called for interview along with other factory workers for his consideration in the placement of Corporation's pay-scales. Certainly, there are different pay-scales for the employees who are working at Head Quarter of the Corporation and the employees working at Sugar Mills. Although, the Corporation has fixed the higher pay-scales of some officers working at the Sugar Mills with a view that there may not be any difficulty in running of the Sugar Mill in absence of competent officers. This fact has been mentioned in the order dated 02.09.1992.
Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporation (supra) is fully application to the present facts of the case. The petitioner was working as Personnel Officer at a particular Sugar Mill and he was not in the pay-scales of the Corporation but was working in the pay-scale as fixed by the Wage Board. The Managing Director by his order dated 02.09.1992 has disposed of the representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order.
Thus, I find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petition is misconceived because the petitioner was not the Personnel Officer of the Corporation but was the Personnel Officer of a particular Sugar Mill. Undoubtedly, he has been designated as Personnel Officer but in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled for the pay-scale equivalent to the Personnel Officers working at the Head Quarter. Therefore, there is no sufficient ground to grant the scale of Personnel Officer of the Corporation because the petitioner was never absorbed in the Officer's pay-scales and despite attending the interview, he could not qualify in the pay-scale of Assistant Grade Officer, which was a grade below than the grade of Personnel Officer of the Corporation. The petitioner remained in the pay-scale as fixed by the Wage Board. The order dated 02.09.1992 is a self speaking and a reasoned order and the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim for the pay-scale of the Personnel Officer of the Corporation, which is above than the Assistant Grade Officer.
For the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 28.10.2014 VNP/-