IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Sauman Talukdar, S/o. Prabin Talukdar - Petitioner
Versus
Oil India Limited & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 3753 of 2011
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Judicial Review - Policy Decision - Circular-7 - Oil India Limited - [1977] 2 All ER 182, (2001) 3 SCC 635 - The court considered the policy decision of Oil India Limited as contained in the circular dated 04.07.2007, which did not extend benefits to those who separated on account of resignation. The court referred to the scope of judicial review and the power of judicial review in respect of policy decisions, emphasizing that a policy can be rendered unconstitutional only in the case of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, and malafide. The court found that the policy decision to exclude those who resigned to join private companies for higher pay scale was based on an intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and therefore, Clause-7 of the circular dated 04.07.2007 required no interference from the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner joined Oil India Limited in 1988, was promoted several times, and resigned in 2007 to join Kuwait Oil Company. Oil India Limited introduced a circular in 2007 to compensate affected executives, but the benefits were not extended to those who separated on account of resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the policy decision to exclude those who resigned to join private companies for higher pay scale was based on an intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and therefore, Clause-7 of the circular dated 04.07.2007 required no interference from the court.
Issues: The issue was whether the policy decision of Oil India Limited, as contained in the circular dated 04.07.2007, whereby the benefits of the circular were not extended to those who separated on account of resignation, was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the policy decision to exclude those who resigned to join private companies for higher pay scale was based on an intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and therefore, Clause-7 of the circular dated 04.07.2007 required no interference from the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the instant writ petition as Clause-7 of the circular dated 04.07.2007 could not be interfered with, and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits under the circular dated 04.07.2007.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging Clause-7 of the Circular bearing No.PERS/01/12-2699 dated 04.07.2007 whereby the benefits of the circular was not extended to the executives who had separated from Oil India Limited other than on account of superannuation/voluntary retirement/early retirement/death on or after 01.01.1997.
2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner joined the Respondent Oil India Limited as an Executive Trainee in the year 1988 and he was absorbed by the Oil India Limited as a Production Engineer after successful completion of his training in the year 1989. The Petitioner thereupon earned his first promotion in the year 1993 to the post of Senior Production Engineer and then in the year 1997, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent Engineer (OGPL). Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was again promoted in the year 2000 to the post of Superintendent Engineer and then in the year 2006, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Production). On 25.04.2007, the petitioner submitted his resignation and sought release from the services of the Oil India Limited w.e.f. 05.06.2007.
3. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner joined another company by the name of “Kuwait Oil Company” and at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was serving in the Kuwait Oil Company as a Senior Petroleum Engineer. After the resignation of the Petitioner which was made effective from 05.06.2007, on 04.07.2007, the Board of Directors of Oil India Limited took a decision to compensate such affected executives in Grade “C” to “F” by payment of lump sum differential amount arrived at notionally fixing by Basic Pay (including Special Pay and Stagnation Pay) w.e.f. 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006 in the manner stipulated in the circular dated 04.07.2007. In the said circular dated 04.07.2007, it was clearly mentioned that the benefits of the said circular would be available to those executives who were in service as well as those who separated from Oil India Limited on account of superannuation/voluntary retirement/early retirement/death on or after 01.01.1997. However, the benefit of the said circular was not extended in cases of separation on account of reasons other than those mentioned in Clause-7. The Petitioner on coming to learn about the said circular, submitted a representation on 21.03.2010 to the Chairman and Managing Director of Oil India Limited while working in Kuwait Oil Company so that the benefits of the said circular dated 04.07.2007 can also be extended to the Petitioner. It further reveals that the Petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2815/2010 which was however withdrawn with a liberty to challenge the decision as reflected in the communication dated 04.07.2007 by filing a fresh writ petition. It is under such circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed.
4. It reveals from the records that the instant writ petition was filed on 22.07.2011 and vide an order dated 29.07.2011, notice was issued in the instant proceedings. The record further reveals that the Oil India Limited had filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition on 13.12.2011. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the Petitioner had tendered his resignation from the service of Oil India Limited citing personal reasons. The petitioner was released from service after the working hours on 05.06.2007 and the Petitioner had never informed the Oil India Limited that he was working in Kuwait Oil Company. It was further mentioned that the pay scales of the Executives belonging to Grades C, C1, D, E and F in the upstream National Oil Companies, the Exploration Companies, etc. were one stage lower than that of the Executives of the equivalent Grades, serving in the downstream National Oil Companies, the Refineries, etc., and as such, there has been continuous demand made by the Executives of the aforesaid Gra
AI
The policy decision can be rendered unconstitutional only in the case of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, and malafide.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in economic and fiscal regulatory matters, courts should exercise restraint and not interfere with policy decisions unless they are clearly il....
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.