IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Ms Parminder Kaur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Hotel Corporation of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7358 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 7327 of 2020 etc.
Decided On : 06-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition requests for pay scale revision. (Para 1) |
| 2. history of pay-scale revisions and guidelines. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. context and background of employment and pay structure. (Para 3) |
| 4. petitioners argue for pay revisions based on guidelines. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. discussion on the legal grounds for writ of mandamus. (Para 29 , 32 , 41) |
| 6. respondents claim no vested right for pay revision. (Para 30 , 31 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. court's analysis on pay revision claims. (Para 39 , 42 , 47 , 49) |
| 8. no legal right to claim parity in pay revisions. (Para 56 , 61 , 68 , 79) |
| 9. financial condition affects pay revision capability. (Para 70 , 80) |
| 10. court's reasoning on financial constraints affecting pay revision. (Para 81 , 84) |
| 11. judgment dismisses petition for lack of entitlement. (Para 91 , 92 , 93) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for implementation of 2008 Guidelines issued by Respondent No.4 for the revision of scale of pay for the year 2007;
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for disbursement of arrears and payments of gratuity in terms of 2008 Guidelines issued by Respondent No.4 for revision of scale of pay for the year 2007 and.
iii. Pass such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The issue involved in the writ petitions is common, therefore, all the petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. The petitioners in the present batch matters are the non-unionized employees falling in the category of Board level and below Board level category of employees of respondent no. 1. The petitioners retired during the period of 2010-2020.
3. The respondent no. 1 is Hotel Corporation of India, a public limited company which was incorporated on 8th July 1971 is a subsidiary of respondent no.2 i.e., Air India Limited before till its disinvestment in January 2022 and is now owned by Air India Assets Holding Limited. The respondent no.3 is the Ministry of Civil Aviation; respondent no.3 is the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the nodal ministry for civil aviation as well as the regulates respondent no. 2; and the respondent no.4 is the Department of Public Enterprises, the nodal department for all Central Public Sector Enterprises (hereinafter called "CPSEs").
4. The first revision to the salary of the employees of respondent no. 1 was introduced in the year 1982, for a period of 5 years, i.e. till the year 1987. The Bureau of Public Enterprises issued a direction on 13th August 1984 vide BPE DO No. 2 (145)/72-BPE (WC), to all CPSEs to follow the Industrial Dearness Allowance pattern instead of the Central Scales of pay and Dearness Allowance pattern.
5. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent no. 1 followed Industrial Dearness Allowance and accordingly, the pay scale was revised for the position of Executives below the Board level and non-unionized supervisors by respondent no.4's DO letter dated 4th April 1990 with effect from 1st January 1987.
6. The respondent no. 4 vide its notification bearing DPE OM no. 2(50)/86/DPE(WC) dated 19th July 1995, again revised the pay scale of below Board level and non-unionized supervisors with effect from 1st January 1992 for a period of another 5 years.
7. On 25th June 1999, the respondent no. 4 further issued the guidelines for revision of pay scales for Board level positions and below Board level positions, including the non-unionized supervisors in Public Enterprises Sectors w.e.f. 1st January 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Guidelines") for a peri
Associate Banks Officers' Assn. v. SBI
Chairman & MD, Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese
Chandrashekar A.K. v. State of Kerala
Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr. v Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.
HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India
Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Workmen
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka
K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore
LIC v. Retired LIC Officers Assn.
Lipton India Ltd. v. Union of India
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Dixit
Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L.
Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. I.D.P.L.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia
Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. of Police
S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India
State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee
State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.
State of Kerala v. Naveena Prabhu
State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya
State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale
State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik
State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray
State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal
The revision of pay for non-unionized employees does not establish a vested right, particularly in light of the financial constraints of the employing authority.
(1) Pay Revision – Whilst fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefits cannot be questioned, what is within domain of court, is to examine impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimi....
The court established that financial constraints can justify the selection of a cut-off date for pay revisions in sick companies, provided the classification is rational.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The court ruled that public sector pay revisions depend on financial viability, with no absolute right to retrospective pay adjustments for employees of financially troubled companies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.