Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sambudddha Chakrabarti, J.
Putcha Parvathisem and others - Petitioners
Versus
Hindustan Copper Limited and others - Respondents
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P. No. 6501(W) of 2011
Decided On : 24-12-2014
For the Petitioners:Arunava Ghosh, Aninda Lahiri and Mainak Ganguly, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Sirsanya Bandhyapadhyay, Raj Kumar Basu, Somnath Roy and Amal Kr. Saha, Advocates.
An administrative decision can be subjected to judicial review if it is unfair, discriminatory, or transgresses well-defined boundaries.
Headnote:
ARREARS - PAYMENT - DISCRIMINATION - IMPLEMENTATION OF PAY REVISION - 1997 PAY REVISION ARREARS - PAYMENT TO FORMER EXECUTIVES - IMPLEMENTATION OF 2007 PAY REVISION - NO PAYMENT OF ARREARS FOR 1997 PAY REVISION - WHETHER DISCRIMINATION - COMPANY'S FINANCIAL HEALTH - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABLE - ARREARS TO BE PAID WITH INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, former executives of Hindustan Copper Limited, challenged the company's decision not to pay residual arrears arising out of the 1997 pay revision for the period from January 1, 1997, to November 30, 1999. The company had implemented the 2007 pay revision but did not clear the dues of the former executives from the earlier period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the company's decision to not pay the arrears for the said period was discriminatory and unfair. It held that the company should have first cleared the long-standing dues of the executives who had separated themselves from the company, otherwise than by voluntary retirement, arising out of the arrears of the previous pay revision.
Issues: 1. Whether the company's decision to not pay the arrears for the said period was discriminatory and unfair? 2. Whether the company should have first cleared the long-standing dues of the executives who had separated themselves from the company, otherwise than by voluntary retirement, arising out of the arrears of the previous pay revision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An administrative decision, even if it is a result of a discretion, is liable to be tested on the anvil of the rule of law and fairness. If such a decision is not just and fair or is such that no man of ordinary prudence would have arrived at the same or has been accentuated by reasons not relevant to the issues involved, the court has the power and is justified in interfering with the same. 2. Once some persons have been treated in a certain manner, a right is created in favor of those who are similarly circumstanced, to be treated equally and at par with them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the decision not to pay the residual arrears arising out of the 1997 pay revision. It directed the respondent company to take all necessary steps for the release of the arrears arising out of the said pay revision for the period from January 1, 1997, to November 30, 1999, which is due to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 8% within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.
Sambudddha Chakrabarti, J.
By this writ petition the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, withdraw and cancel the decision not to pay the residual arrears out of the 1997 pay revision pertaining to the period from January 01, 1997 to November 30, 1999 as communicated by the letters of the respondents, dated November 01, 2010 and February 25, 2011 being Annexures P-1, P-13 and P-16 respectively, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take all necessary steps for the immediate release of the arrears arising out of the 1997 pay revision for the said period mentioned above and for other reliefs.
2. The petitioners are former executives of Hindustan Copper Limited, i.e., the respondent no. 1 herein (the company, for short). According to the petitioners in or about the year 1997 the company was incurring continuous losses for various reasons. Consequently, it had to introduce several austerity measures like Voluntary Retirement Scheme, deferment of salaries of its employees, etc. The company was also not in a position to revise the pay scales of its employees etc.
3. On and from the year 2004, however, the financial health of the company gradually improved. Consequently, the company started the process of revision of salary of the executives, which included the petitioners, with effect from January 01, 1997, and the Ministry of Mines, Government of India communicated its decision to implement the pay revision and other benefits for the Board and the below Board level executives with effect from the proposed date on a notional basis subject to certain conditions which were mentioned in the said letter.
4. The Assistant General Manager (Personnel) of the company issued an office order declaring that the scales of pay of all the regular executives borne on the rolls of the company as on January 01, 1997 would be revised subject to certain conditions. The said office order fixed the period of such pay revision from January 01, 1997 to December 31, 2006.
5. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 presented before the appropriate authority of the Government of India a break-up of the arrears of wage and salary due to the existing and former workmen and executives for the period from 1997 to 2004. It appears from the data furnished that an amount of about Rs. 1,94,71,631/- was due to the former executives, other than those who had taken voluntary retirement, as arrears arising out of the pay revision for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. On behalf of the Government of India approval was conveyed to the payment of residual arrears arising out of the pay revision. The first instalment of arrears and salaries for the period from December 01, 1999 to July 31, 2002 was paid by the company to the executives including the former ones. However, the second instalment was not paid during the financial year due to the loss suffered by the company.
6. This was a followed by a meeting between the management of the company and various trade unions wherein the unions consented to fore go the residual wage arrears for the period from January 01, 1997 to November 30, 1999.
7. The petitioners further alleged that the management of the company soon thereafter initiated the process on implementation of the wage/salary revision of 2007 without clearing the long standing dues of the former executives of the company other than those who had voluntarily retired. Initially an interim relief at the rate of 18 per cent. was released in favour of the serving employees and, thereafter, the entire exercise of the pay revision of 2007 was completed by March, 2010. The entire arrears for the period from January, 2007 to March, 2010 were released in one go.
8. Discrimination has been alleged against the company for not clearing the dues arising out of the previous pay revision of 1997 for the period from January 01, 1997 to November 30, 1999. The five top executives of the company
