Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, M. GANGA RAO, JJ.
Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Shri G. Hari Hara Reddy, S/o. Late Appala Swamy Reddy - Respondent
WRIT APPEAL Nos.440 & 446 of 2017
Decided on : 13-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. G. Vidyasagar Sr. Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Siva, K. Lakshman, ASG
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Revised Pay Rules, 1997 – Rectification of an anomaly – Challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition filed by the respondents, two of whom were working as Assistant Technical Officers and the others working as Deputy Technical Officers – Heard Counsel for the Corporation, Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India and Mr. Siva, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Respondents 1 and 2 were employed as Assistant Technical Officers and respondents 4 to 6 were employed as Deputy Technical Officers in Security Printing Press at Hyderabad. This Security Printing Press was actually constituted into a separate Corporation, with effect from February, 2006 – Recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission were notified with the publication of the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 on 30.05.1997 –p When the recommendations were accepted and the Rules were issued, the scales of pay of the posts of Foreman (Printing), Assistant Technical Officer and Deputy Technical Officer, were made respectively as Rs.5500-9000, Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000. In the hierarchy, Foreman (Printing) was in the feeder category to the post of Assistant Technical Officer and post of Assistant Technical Officer was in the feeder category to the post of Deputy Technical Officer – Held, It does not mean that understanding on part of 6th Central Pay Commission gave scope for respondents to seek in the year 2007, the rectification of an anomaly that arose in 1997 – In fact, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission came probably after respondents approached this Court – Respondents did not push their claim on the basis of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission – Therefore unless an order is passed rectifying anomaly, it cannot be presumed that there was probably a rectification of anomaly, as reflected in understanding of the 6th Central Pay Commission – To put it in simple terms, anomaly that the respondents complained, arose with the issue of the notification of the Revised Pay- scale Rules, 1997– There were other employees holding other posts in the same organization, who were diligent enough to approach the Tribunal in year 2002, when under the guise of removing the anomaly, a further anomaly was created. But the respondents were not diligent enough to rack up the issue for a full period of 10 years from 1997 to 2007 – Anomaly in case of respondents did not arise either on account of the Government Memo \or on account of the decision of the Tribunal in O.A – Therefore appellants are right in contending that after the expiry of the term of the Anomalies Committee, it is not possible to address the grievance of the respondents – If the respondents had taken up their cause at the appropriate time, it would have been possible to refer the matter to the Anomalies Committee – Appeals allowed.
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. The Union of India on the one hand and the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India on the other hand have come up with the present writ appeals challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, two of whom were working as Assistant Technical Officers and the others working as Deputy Technical Officers.
2. Heard Mr. G. Vidhyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation, Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Siva, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 were employed as Assistant Technical Officers and respondents 4 to 6 were employed as Deputy Technical Officers in the Security Printing Press at Hyderabad. This Security Printing Press was actually constituted into a separate Corporation, with effect from February, 2006.
5. The recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission were notified with the publication of the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 on 30.05.1997. When the recommendations were accepted and the Rules were issued, the scales of pay of the posts of Foreman (Printing), Assistant Technical Officer and Deputy Technical Officer, were made respectively as Rs.5500-9000, Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000. In the hierarchy, Foreman (Printing) was in the feeder category to the post of Assistant Technical Officer and the post of Assistant Technical Officer was in the feeder category to the post of Deputy Technical Officer.
6. In other words as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, as originally agreed to by the Central Government in the revised pay-scales, 1997, the intermediary promotional post was granted a lower pay-scale than the post which was its feeder category, and the highest promotional post was granted a pay-scale on par with the post of Foreman (Printing).
7. In an attempt at rectification of this anomaly the Government seems to have issued a communication dated 10.02.2001, recommending a scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 for Foreman (Printing), a pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 for the post of Assistant Technical Officer and a pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 for Deputy Technical Officer. In other words, the pay- scales of the posts of Foreman (Printing) and Assistant Technical Officer were sought to be equalized, by bringing down the pay-scale of the post of Foreman (Printing), from what was originally agreed to pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. Aggrieved by the equalization sought to be made, by downgrading the pay-scales to a level lower than that recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission, the Industrial Workmen working in the Security Printing Press, numbering about 57, which included those holding the post of Foreman, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.382 of 2002. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal, by an order dated 30.04.2003, with a direction to the Central Government to implement the pay-scales as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission.
8. Challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.383 of 2002, the Central Government filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15282 of 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court by order dated 11.12.2003. The said order was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No.7062 of 2004.
9. Consequently, Foreman (Printing) got the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 as originally recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission restored, with the intervening Memo dated 10.02.2001 being set aside.
10. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.403 of 2007 on the file of this Court praying for declaring as illegal, the inaction on the part of the respondents in implementing the scales of pay duly rectifying the anomaly in respect of
