Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (11) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to benefit of revision of scale of pay with retrospective effect for a person who has resigned from service. Summary: Entitlement to Benefit of Revision of Scale of Pay with Retrospective Effect: Whether a person who has resigned from service is entitled to the benefit of revision of scale of pay with retrospective effect is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.01.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2004 of 2005. Appellant herein was employed as Director (Finance) in the respondent No. 2 company which is an undertaking of respondent No. 1. He resigned from services on 23.05.1995. The Government of India subsequently issued an office memorandum (OM) dated 19.07.1995 whereby and where under the scales of pay for the top posts, i.e., `executives holding board level posts' were revised with effect from 1.01.1992. We are concerned herein with Schedule `C' posts in respect whereof existing scale of pay of Rs. 7500-200-8500 was revised to Rs. 10000-400-12000. On or about 1.01.1996, appellant made a representation requesting payment of arrears of pay revision inter alia on the ground that he, having been in service on 1.01.1992, was entitled to the benefit of the said OM dated 19.07.1995. The said prayer was rejected by respondent by an order dated 31.01.1996, stating that the Industries Department of the BPE of Kerala State Government has not issued any specific directive to the Public Sector Undertakings in Kerala for making the above revision effective. Hence, we are unable to consider your request. Appellant made another representation before respondent No. 1 on 14.02.1996 which has been turned down by the Government of Kerala by a letter dated 30.07.1996, stating that the State Government have not yet adopted the revised Central BPE schedules in respect of SLPES. As such, Government regrets their inability to concede to your request. Appellant filed a writ petition upon serving a legal notice on the respondents. By reason of a judgment and order dated 23.03.2005, a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the said writ petition stating that as appellant was not in service when the said OM dated 19.07.1995 was issued, he was not entitled to any relief. An Intra-court appeal preferred there against has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court by reason of the impugned judgment, directing that the application suffers from laches and it is not as if settled rights automatically are there in favour of the appellant. Mr. K. Vishwanathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in view of the language used in the OM dated 19.07.1995, the revised scale of pay stood incorporated with effect from 1.01.1992 and as appellant was in service on that day, there was no reason as to why the benefit of the revised scale of pay should be denied to him. In any event, the OM dated 19.07.1995 does not contain any clause in terms whereof the claim of appellant stands excluded. Mr. A. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. G. Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on the other hand, urged that as the State had adopted the aforementioned OM dated 19.07.1995 only with effect from 1.04.1997, the said OM is not applicable in the case of appellant. In any event, appellant having resigned from the service, was not entitled to the benefit thereof. Ordinarily, a person retiring from service on pensionable post would obtain the benefit of the revision in the scale of pay. This was so held in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [(2006) 9 SCC 630]. The services of the appellant being not a pensionable one, in our opinion, U.P. Raghavendra Acharya (supra) has no application to the fact of the present case. In that case, the amount of pension was to be calculated. On what basis, the same was required to be done was considered in the following terms:
|