2009 (5) TMI 1022 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in directing the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to grant advance increments to deputationist employees from the State Government.
2. Applicability of Regulation 81 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 to the respondents.
3. Whether the writ petition was barred by delay or laches.
4. Whether the writ of mandamus was appropriate in this case.
5. Whether there was discrimination between Central Government and State Government employees.
6. Validity of classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. High Court's Directive on Advance Increments:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in directing FCI to grant advance increments to 57 deputationist employees from the State Government. The respondents, who were initially deputationists from the State of West Bengal, were absorbed into FCI. They contended that they were entitled to advance increments as per Regulation 81 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The High Court had allowed their writ petition and directed FCI to grant the increments.

2. Applicability of Regulation 81:
Regulation 81 stipulates that an employee on first appointment to a post in FCI may have their pay fixed at a higher stage in the time-scale and may be granted one advance increment if they had been in continuous service for at least two years in any government department or public sector undertaking. The Supreme Court noted that both Central and State Government employees were similarly situated and performed similar duties. Therefore, the benefit of Regulation 81 should apply equally to both sets of employees. The Court found that FCI had extended this benefit to Central Government employees but not to State Government employees, which amounted to discrimination.

3. Delay or Laches:
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the writ petition was barred by delay or laches. The earlier writ petition was disposed of on 29.08.1996, and the current petition was filed in 1997. Given that the Supreme Court's order was implemented on 07.10.1996, the Court held that there was no undue delay in filing the writ petition.

4. Writ of Mandamus:
The Court addressed whether a writ of mandamus was appropriate in this case. It was argued that Regulation 81 conferred discretionary power on the appointing authority, and thus, a mandamus could not be issued. However, the Supreme Court held that once a statutory authority exercises discretion in favor of one class of employees, it cannot deny the same benefit to another similarly situated class. Therefore, the High Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus was justified.

5. Discrimination Between Central and State Government Employees:
The Supreme Court found that FCI's differential treatment of Central and State Government employees was discriminatory. Both sets of employees were absorbed into FCI and were governed by the same regulations. The Court noted that the nature of duties, qualifications, and service conditions were similar for both groups. Thus, denying the benefit of advance increments to State Government employees while granting it to Central Government employees violated the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. Validity of Classification Under Article 14:
The Court examined whether the classification between Central and State Government employees was valid under Article 14, which allows reasonable classification. The Court held that the classification was not reasonable as both groups were similarly situated and performed similar duties. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments to emphasize that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" must be applied, and any classification must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In this case, the Court found no valid reason for the differential treatment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's directive to grant advance increments to the deputationist employees from the State Government. The Court found that the respondents were entitled to the benefits under Regulation 81 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, and that the differential treatment between Central and State Government employees was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petition was not barred by delay or laches, and the issuance of a writ of mandamus was appropriate.