Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 747
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Manik Chakraborty & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
WP. Nos. 30774 (w), 7262 (W), 25465 (W), 7306 (W), 7335 (W), 14427 (W), 8354 (W), 14629 (W), 15504 (W) & 16128 (W) of 2017
Decided On :10-12-2019
For the Petitioners:Soumya Majumder, Koushik Bhattacharyya, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Ashok Kumar Jena, Sunil Choudhury, Ashima Roy Choudhury, Advocates.
The Department of Public Enterprise guidelines allowed pay revision only for non-loss making CPSEs, and CIWTC, being a loss-making company, could not implement the Sixth CPC recommendation. The court also clarified that CIWTC's liabilities could not be attributed to the Government.
Headnote:
Pay Revision - Discrimination - Sixth CPC Recommendation - [PAY REVISION] - [Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd.] - [Sixth Central Pay Commission, Department of Public Enterprise guidelines] - The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking arrears of 2006-07 pay revision in CDA pay pattern and IDA pay pattern, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to arrear salary based on actual implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendation. The court held that the Department of Public Enterprise guidelines allowed pay revision only for non-loss making CPSEs and that CIWTC, being a loss-making company, could not implement the Sixth CPC recommendation. The court also rejected the petitioners' claim that the Central Government was morally responsible for payment of salaries, stating that CIWTC's liabilities could not be attributed to the Government. The court clarified that its judgment would not prevent the respondents from implementing the Sixth CPC recommendations and paying arrear salary if they so decide as a matter of policy.
Fact of the Case:
The ten writ petitions involved 234 ex-employees of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (CIWTC) seeking arrears of 2006-07 pay revision in CDA pay pattern and IDA pay pattern. The petitioners claimed that the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendation should have been implemented for all employees of CIWTC, but CIWTC argued that it could not implement the recommendation due to being a loss-making company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to arrear salary based on actual implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendation. It held that the Department of Public Enterprise guidelines allowed pay revision only for non-loss making CPSEs and that CIWTC, being a loss-making company, could not implement the Sixth CPC recommendation. The court also rejected the petitioners' claim that the Central Government was morally responsible for payment of salaries, stating that CIWTC's liabilities could not be attributed to the Government. The court clarified that its judgment would not prevent the respondents from implementing the Sixth CPC recommendations and paying arrear salary if they so decide as a matter of policy.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to arrear salary based on actual implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendation, and whether CIWTC could implement the recommendation despite being a loss-making company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Department of Public Enterprise guidelines allowed pay revision only for non-loss making CPSEs and that CIWTC, being a loss-making company, could not implement the Sixth CPC recommendation. It also rejected the petitioners' claim that the Central Government was morally responsible for payment of salaries, stating that CIWTC's liabilities could not be attributed to the Government.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and vacated the interim orders, clarifying that its judgment would not prevent the respondents from implementing the Sixth CPC recommendations and paying arrear salary if they so decide as a matter of policy.
Judgment :
1. These ten writ petitions have been taken up for hearing and disposal together as they involve similar questions of facts and law.
2. The total number of writ petitioners in the ten writ petitions is 234. They are all ex-employees of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (in short 'CIWTC'). They have either superannuated in the usual course or released under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short 'VRS') (Old) or under Improved Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short 'IVRS') in 2015.
3. The petitioners in the following cases are superannuated employees under the Central Dearness Allowance (in short 'CDA') pay pattern:-
(i) WP No. 7262 (W) of 2017 (Sunil Naskar-Vs.-Union of India & Ors.)
(ii) WP No. 8354 (W) of 2016 (Matilal Deb & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.)
(iii) WP No. 7306 (W) of 2017 (Asok Kumar Mukhopadhyay & Ors.-vs.- Union of India & Ors.)
(iv) WP No. 16128 (W) of 2017 (Pranab Kumar Das & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.)
4. The writ petitioners in the following cases were released under IVRS 2015 under CDA pay pattern:-
(i) WP No. 14427 (W) of 2017 (Sankar Chandra Bachar & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.)
(ii) WP No. 14629 (W) of 2017 (Tapas Naskar & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.) The writ petitioners in WP 7335 (W) of 2017 (Arup Kumar Ghosh & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.) were released under the VRS (Old) in CDA pay pattern.
(iii) The writ petitioners in WP 30774 (W) of 2017 (Manik Chakraborty & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.) were governed by tripartite Engineering Wage Settlement of West Bengal executed in the year 1992 and they were born in the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pay pattern.
(iv) The writ petitioners in WP 25465 (W) of 2017 (Sumit Ghoshal & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.) were governed by bipartite settlement executed in 1992 and were covered under the IDA pay pattern pay scale.
(v) The writ petitioners in WP 15504 (W) of 2017 (Alok Kumar Majumdar & Ors.-vs.-Union of India & Ors.) were covered by a settlement executed in 1997 in the IDA pay pattern.
5. The relief sought in all the writ petitions is for arrears of 2006-07 pay revision in CDA pay pattern and IDA pay pattern respectively. The claim is based essentially on the judgment dated 3 May, 1990 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association - vs. - Jute Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 436, which pertained to pay revision of employees in 69 Central Public Sector Units (CPSUs) including CIWTC. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendation in CDA pay pattern was to be implemented with effect from 1 January, 2006 and for the IDA pay pattern the implementing date was to be 1 January, 2007. It was submitted that the writ petitioners received the benefit of the 4th and 5th CPC recommendation, irrespective of CIWTC's financial position.
6. Mr. Majumder, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Wage Policy of the Central Government and Cabinet approval in 2005-06 to handover certain assets of CIWTC to other entities do not reject the Ministry's approval for implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendation. In this connection, learned Counsel referred to pages 25-36 of the affidavit- in-opposition filed by CIWTC in Tapas Naskar's case (WP 14629 (W) of 2017) which are copies of the Wage Policy and note for the Cabinet prepared by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highway.
7. Learned Counsel submitted that the writ petitioners, whether superannuated or voluntarily retired under the Old VRS or the IVRS had no occasion to know that there was no rejection of the proposal to implement the Sixth CPC recommendation. Rather, the Central Government had promised budgetary support for payment of wages to CIWTC employees way back in 2005. In support of this, learned Counsel referred to the note for the Cabinet prepared by the Ministry of Shipping which was adverted to hereinabove.
8. Learned Counsel then submitted that in 20
