SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5395

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Deepak Biswas, Ms.Ruchika Rathi and Ms.Varsha Agarwal, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Mr.A.P.Singh, Mr.Shreyansh Rathi, Ms.Sonam Gosain and Ms.Surbhi Singh, Advocates, for HCI alongwith Mr.K.Gopal Krishna, CFO.

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Revision of pay scale - Petitioners, non-unionized employees, sought implementation of 2008 Guidelines for pay revision and disbursement of arrears - The petitioners retired between 2010-2020 without any pay scale revision since 1997. Respondent, a public limited company, resisted the claim citing financial constraints and stated that revision of pay is not a vested right. The court held the writs were maintainable despite delay, but dismissed the petitions, finding no legal right for pay revision while emphasizing the authority of the employer in policy decisions considering financial health. (Paras 1, 50, 66, 88, 91)

Findings of Court:
The court noted the employer's continued losses from 2003, negating any obligation to revise pay scales and asserted that merit-based parity amongst different classes of employees could not be claimed. (Paras 3, 84, 91)

Issues: The key issues included whether petitioners' claims were barred by limitation, if a writ of mandamus could be issued for pay revision, and the legitimacy of seeking parity with unionized employees. (Paras 1, 41, 84)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that revision of pay does not constitute a vested right, and the financial viability of the employer is a crucial consideration. The claim for parity was deemed misdirected given the distinct classifications of employees. (Paras 56, 90)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top