Honble CHAUHAN, J. – This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 10.7.1995 in Writ Petition No. 825/91, by which the claim of the respondent of stepping up the pay scale has been allowed, by placing reliance upon the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. General Insurance Corporation & Ors. (1). The present appellants have also filed appeal against the said judgment and order in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra), wherein the operation of the said judgment and order has been stayed by the Division Bench and the appeal is pending for final hearing before the Jaipur Bench of this Court.

(2). Respondent is an employee of the appellant Company which floated a ra- tionalisation scheme in 1985, amending the earlier rationalisation scheme of 1974, bracketing/bunching the employees in two or more consecutive stages together and fixing a revised pay scale for them. Thus, the scheme provided for restructuring the pay scales. For the purpose of implementation of the said rationalisation scheme, all the employees of the appellant Company were asked, either to opt for re-fixation from 1.4.1983 or from 15.10.1985. Consequences/advantages/benefits of opting for refixation with effect from 1.4.1983 and from 15.10.1985 were made clear and explained.

(3). Employees including the respondent, after making their own calculations/assessments of the advantages and dis-advantages and examining the pros and cons of both the dates to opt for refixation, made their options. Respondent opted for implementation of the scheme with effect from 1.4.1983 and he was given the benefit of the scheme accordingly in 1985 itself. Respondent made a grievance by his representation dated 22.6.1989 contained in Annx. 2 to the writ petition that acceptance of scheme with effect from 1.4.1983 has caused him financial loss, as persons junior to him who had opted re-fixation from 15.10.1985 were in a gainful position. He also furnished datas giving the difference of such gains and losses and prayer that such an anomaly should be removed. He made the following prayer in his representation :

``I, therefore, request your goodself to kindly provide appropriate re- lief for fixation and in that case I am prepared to re-opt the date of fixation and to refund the arrears, if required.

(4). Matter was referred to the national management and subsequently his representation was rejected and the order was communicated to him vide letter dated 7.11.1990. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, respondent preferred the writ petition, which has been allowed. Hence, the instance appeal by the employer Company.

(5). Heard Shri N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri N.M. Lodha and Shri Manish Singhvi, for the sole respondent.

(6). Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that once the respondent has opted the rationalisation scheme, with effect from 1.4.1983, with his eyes open, he cannot make grievances after enjoying the benefits for several years.

(7). Shri Gupta has vehemently argued that after the promulgation of the rationalisation scheme of 1985, the employees had opted for different dates. Thus, the employees who opted for refixation from 1.4.1983 belong to an entirely different category from those who opted for refixation from 15.10.1985 and, being two distinct and separate classes, a person belonging to one category has no right to claim parity with a person belonging to another category. Thus, the question of giving a hostile treatment, violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution does not arise in such a case. Shri Gupta has submitted that no person belonging to category of the respondent i.e. who opted for refixation from 1.4.1983, has been given the benefit to such an extent that may create an anomaly qua the respondent.

(8). Shri Manish Singhvi has argued that it was solemn duty of the appellants to remove the anomaly as the treatment given by the rationalisation sch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document