B. Sasidharan v. Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 22814 of 2016 (B)** **----------------------------** |**WP(C).No. 22814 of 2016 (B)**<br>**----------------------------**|**WP(C).No. 22814 of 2016 (B)**<br>**----------------------------**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER(S):**|| |**----------------------**|| |**1.**|**B.SASIDHARAN**| ||**DEPUTY OFFICER (FINANCE)**| ||**INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED (IREL)**| ||**CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 583.**| ||**BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ**| ||**KUM.A.ARUNA**| |**RESPONDENT(S):**|| |**-------------------------**|| |**1.**|**INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD (IREL)**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR,**| ||**INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED,**| ||**PLOT NO.1207, VEER SAVARKAR MARG,**| ||**NEAR SIDDHI VIJAYAK TEMPLE,**| ||**PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400 028.**| |**2.**|**GENERAL MANAGER & HEAD**| ||**INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED,**| ||**CORPORATE OFFICE, CHAVARA 691 583**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT.**| |**3.**|**DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HRM)**| ||**INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED,**| ||**CORPORATE OFFICE, CHAVARA**| ||**691 583**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT.**| ## **R BY SC SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-072016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 22814 of 2016 (B)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/6/1984. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/8/1991 P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/8/1995. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/7/2000. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/7/2003. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/9/2015 IN WPC NO.7216/2014 P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2015 P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/12/205 P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED DATED 15/1/2016 P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/2/2016 P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5/3/2016 P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/3/2014** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** **avk** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.22814 of 2016 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of July, 2016 ## JUDGMENT The case projected in this writ petition (civil) is as follows:- The petitioner is presently working as Deputy Officer (Finance) in the service of the 1[st] respondent Indian Rare Earths Ltd (IREL) and that he had earlier entered service on respondent as Junior Fitter on 9.6.1984. By Exts.P-3 to P-5, he was granted promotion, from time to time. It is averred that Ext.P-5 dated 11.7.2003 would show that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant/Typist with effect from 1.7.2003 in the scale of pay of Rs.4,465-180-9865 with the basic pay of Rs.9,145/-. Later, by Ext.P-7, order dated 7.11.2015, he was promoted as Deputy Officer (Finance) in the scale of pay of Rs.12,600/-3%-32500/- with effect from 1.1.2013 and making it clear therein that the orders fixing pay on promotion will be issued separately and that the retrospective date of promotion will be reckoned only for the purpose of notional seniority and payment of arrears in the higher grade and not for any other purpose etc. It is the case of the petitioner that as on W.P.(C).No.22814 of 2016 2 31.12.2012, the basic pay of the petitioner in the post of Senior Assistant/Typist was Rs.24,657/- and that the effect of Ext.P-8 dated 5.12.2005 on account of his promotion to the higher post of Deputy Officer (Finance) is that his pay is fixed at Rs.23,320/which is lower than the earlier basic pay of Rs.24,657 drawn by him in the lower post of Senior Assistant/Typist as on 31.12.2012. Accordingly, it is urged that on grant of promotion to the higher post of Deputy Officer (Finance) with effect from 1.1.2013, the basic pay of the petitioner ought to have been fixed as Rs.24,657 x 3% notional increment and annual increment. That if the petitioner had not been promoted to the higher post of Deputy Officer (Finance), the basic pay of the petitioner would have remained higher in the lower post than what is now fixed as per the impugned Ext.P-8 proceedings for the higher post and that merely on account of the promotion to the higher post, the petitioner is now made to suffer reduction in basic pay though this process of actual reduction of pay is done in the name of promotion and that such a situation is arbitrary, unjust and would amount to hostile indiscrimination. The petitioner also relies on the rulings of the Bombay High Court in Mangala Kamat v. Government of Goa reported in 1992 (7) SLR 254 (Bom.) as well W.P.(C).No.22814 of 2016 3 as the ruling of the Apex Court in Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa and others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 136 and would contend on the basis of those principles that it is well settled principle that on revision of pay, the existing pay cannot be reduced and can only be increased. Pointing out all the aspects, in relation to the grievances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P- 11 appeal dated 5.3.2016, before the 1[st] respondent. It is averred that as per the instructions/guidelines of the Grievances Redressal Committee for staff and officers in the respondent IREL, appeals submitted before the said committee should be decided within a period of one month. However, in the instant case Ext.P-11 appeal submitted by the petitioner is kept undecided for the reasons not known to the petitioner and that effective steps ought to have been taken by the 1[st] respondent who is also the Chairman of the Grievances Redressal Committee of the 1[st] respondent. It is in the light of these aspects, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition (civil) with the following prayers:- - “i). To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P-8 as unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable; - ii). To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of pay protection in the post of Deputy Officer (Finance) with effect from 1.1.2013; - iii). To issue a writ of mandamus directing the W.P.(C).No.22814 of 2016 4 respondents to pass orders fixing the pay of the petitioner as Rs.24,657 x 3% notional increment and annual increment with effect from 1.1.2013 and to cancel Ext.P-8 order. - iv). To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P-11 appeal submitted by the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;. - v). To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that the petitioner would now limit his prayer for a direction to the competent authority of the 1[st] respondent to take a considered decision on Ext.P-11 appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after taking into account all relevant aspects in the matter as pointed out by him and also in the light of the rulings of the Court raised by him etc. 3. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri.N.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) appearing for the respondents. 4. In the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings of this writ petition (civil) and more particularly in the light of the limited submission made on behalf of the W.P.(C).No.22814 of 2016 5 petitioner, it is ordered that in case Ext.P-11 is still pending consideration, then the competent authority of the 1[st] respondent will take up the same for consideration without much delay and shall render a considered decision thereon after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either in person or through his authorized representative if any, without much delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to submit any detailed supplemental representation in aid of his submissions and contentions and this the petitioner may submit along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 1[st] respondent. The specific contentions of the petitioner that he was drawing basic pay of Rs.24,657/- as on 31.12.2012 in the lower post of Senior Assistant/Typist and that the pay of Rs.23,320/- fixed consequent to his promotion to the higher post of Deputy Officer (Finance), cannot at any rate be lower than the pay fixed previously for him in respect of the lower post and the submissions made by him by placing reliance on the aforestated rulings etc, should be duly adverted to and taken into consideration while the competent authority of the 1[st] respondent W.P.(C).No.22814 of 2016 6 renders a considered decision on Ext.P-11 Appeal Memorandum. With these observations and directions, the writ petition (civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE avk