WP/5416/1999 of Md. Osman Quadri, son of M.A. Waheed, Vs The Singareni Colleries Co., Ltd., on 28 December 2007

COMMON ORDER:

In both these writ petitions, common questions of law and factarise for consideration, therefore, they are being disposed of by thiscommon order.

For the purpose of convenience, the facts enumerated inW.P.No.5416 of 1999 are taken into consideration.

According to the petitioners, they joined in Singareni CollieriesCompany Limited in various capacities. It is their complaint that theirjuniors are drawing more salary compared to their salary. Accordingto petitioners, the Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal Industry (JBCCI)comprises of all the managements of the coal industry and theworkmen are represented by the recognized union. The decisions ofthe Bipartite Committee are binding on all the managements of theCoal Industry including the Singareni Collieries Company Limited,which is a member of the JBCCI. The Chairman, Coal India Limited,Calcutta is the Chairman of JBCCI. The JBCCI-V has discussed theissue with regard to anomaly in pay arising out of senior employees inthe same pay scale, covered by the same seniority list and samedesignations in a cadre getting lower pay than their juniors as a resultof implementation of NCWA-IV. Ultimately, the committee in itsmeeting held on 21.8.1996 has resolved to remove the saidanomalies. Accordingly, a Circular No.CIL/C-5B/JBCCI-V/I.VNo.18/96/639 dated 18.9.1996 was issued directing all themanagements of the Coal Industry to rectify the anomaly. The relevantparagraphs of the said circular read as under:

“1. When the senior employee promoted to a higher postbefore 1[st] July 1991 draws less pay in the revisedbefore 1[st] July 1991 draws less pay in the revised scale than his junior who is promoted to the higherpost on or after 1[st] July 1991.

2. Senior employee in the same pay scale and covered by thesame seniority list in a cadre and who has securedfixation at the same stage as his junior, but due todifferent dates of increment the junior starts gettinghigher pay than his senior. The removal of suchanomalies will be subject to the following conditions:same seniority list in a cadre and who has securedfixation at the same stage as his junior, but due todifferent dates of increment the junior starts gettinghigher pay than his senior. The removal of suchanomalies will be subject to the following conditions:

a) both the junior and senior employees should belong to thesame cadre and the post in which they have beenpromoted should be covered by the same seniority listand same care.same cadre and the post in which they have beenpromoted should be covered by the same seniority listand same care.

b) the pre-revised and revised scale of pay of lower andhigher post in which they are entitled to draw payshould be identical.higher post in which they are entitled to draw payshould be identical.

c) the anomaly should be directly as a result of application ofnormal rules of fixation on such promotion in therevised scale of pay and as a result of fixation of payin the revised scale of under NCWA-V. The next dateof increment of the senior employee will be the sameas that of the junior employee. If even in the lowerpost, the junior employee was drawing more pay in thepre-revised pay scale than the senior by virtue of anyadvance increment granted to him, these provisionsshall not apply in such cases.normal rules of fixation on such promotion in therevised scale of pay and as a result of fixation of payin the revised scale of under NCWA-V. The next dateof increment of the senior employee will be the sameas that of the junior employee. If even in the lowerpost, the junior employee was drawing more pay in thepre-revised pay scale than the senior by virtue of anyadvance increment granted to him, these provisionsshall not apply in such cases.

It has to be ensured for removal of anomalies the basicconditions stipulated above are fulfilled before initiatingany action.conditions stipulated above are fulfilled before initiatingany action.

This will apply to cases arising on or after 1[st] July 1991.

You are requested to take necessary action to implement theabove decision”.above decision”.

Thus, the simple case of the petitioners is that their juniors aredrawing more salary compared to their salary, which is an anomalyand needs to be rectified.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1

and 2 denying the allegations made by the petitioners and assertedthat petitioners worked in various capacities. They were promoted toCategory-VI with effect from 1.4.1991. Whereas, respondents 3 and 4were initially appointed as I.T.I. apprentices and were promoted toCategory-V on 1.6.1982 and later they were placed in Category-VI witheffect from 1.9.1991. The basic pay of the petitioners was fixed atRs.62-64 ps. in Category-VI as on 30.6.1991 under NCWA-IV and thebasic pay of respondents 3 and 4 was fixed as Rs.59-08 ps. inCategory-V as on 30.6.1991 under NCWA-IV. The basic pay of thepetitioners was fixed at Rs.90-58 ps. in Category-IV as on 1.9.1991under NCWA-V. Likewise, the basic pay of respondents 3 and 4 wasfixed at Rs.94-12 ps. in Category-VI as on 1.9.1991 under NCWA-V. The anomaly in pay fixation had arisen in view of implementation ofrevised pay scales under NCWA-V, but such anomalies are not to berectified, as mentioned in the last para of CircularNo.P.49/5190/IR/1607 dated 4.10.1996. The anomalies are to berectified in case of daily rated employees promoted to monthly ratedand monthly rated employees promoted to higher monthly rated only,whereas petitioners were promoted from daily rated category to higherdaily rated category only. Thus, the petitioners are not eligible forrectification of basic anomaly under circular dated 4.10.1996. Asregards removal of anomalies, JBCCI issued guidelines whichprovides for removal of anomaly only where the workers promotedfrom daily rated to monthly rated and from monthly rated to highermonthly rated. These are the basic conditions stipulated by JBCCI forremoval of anomaly and the petitioners do not fit into it. Though, ananomaly had arisen, it cannot be rectified. Heard both sides.

Admittedly, petitioners are seniors to respondents 3 and 4 and were promoted from daily rated to higher daily rated category. According to respondents 1 and 2, juniors to the petitioners whoremained in daily rated category have reached the highest point in thepay scales. Though petitioners were promoted to higher daily ratedcategory, in view of revision of pay scales and its implementationunder NCWA-V, anomalies have arisen. There is no dispute as to thisaspect, but the assertion made by the respondents 1 and 2 is thatJBCCI circular dated 1.11.1991 has no application to the case ofpetitioners and the said circular is applicable only in cases ofanomalies which had arisen, where daily rated workers are promotedas monthly rated workers and monthly rated workers are promoted ashigher monthly rated workers, but not in case of petitioners who werepromoted from daily rated to higher daily rated category, which is notcontemplated under the said circular. Further, the circular dated1.11.1991 needs to be read with the decision taken by theStandardization Committee at its meeting held on 18.6.1980 atCalcutta, which reads as under:

“Anomalies arising out of senior employees promoted prior to1.1.1975 (when NCWA-I was implemented) getting lower paythan their juniors promoted after 1.1.1975, both the seniorsand juniors being in the same pay scales, same designationand covered by the same seniority list in a cadre was takenup for discussion. It was noted that this issue was not settledeven though it was taken up for consideration during theperiod when NCWA-I was in force. It was suggested thatsince such anomalies have been agreed to be rectified as perthe decision taken up by the Standardization Committee on26.2.1980 and as incorporated in I.I.No.26 dated 6.3.1980 it isagreed that such anomalies would be rectified if they are stillpersisting between the seniors and juniors in the same payscale, with the same designation and covered by the sameseniority list in a cadre as on 1.1.1979. However, therectification in such cases will be done only with effect from 1.1.1979 and no arrears will be payable to the employeesconcerned for the period prior to 1.1.1979. That is to say,such individual cases will be checked up and where such ananomaly had occurred and was still persisting as on 1.1.1979the pay of the senior employees in the individual cases will bestepped up to the level of junior employees, concerned witheffect from 1.1.1979. This decision will however, apply to (a)daily rated employees promoted to monthly rated employeeand (b) monthly rated employee promoted to higher monthlyrated posts in a cadre and covered by the same seniority list”.

It is unfortunate that the respondents 1 and 2 have taken a standthat the cause of the petitioners is not supported by the policyguidelines made by JBCCI in circular dated 28.12.1989 and dated4.10.1996. The contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that thepetitioners are not entitled for rectification of anomalies seems to betheir own idea and not supported by any circulars. The decision takenby the Standardization Committee at its meeting held on 18.6.1980has no application to the facts of the case. Further, in the JBCCIcircular dated 28.12.1989, it was categorically indicated thatanomalies that had arisen after 1.1.1987 needs to be rectified from thedate the junior was promoted giving rise to anomaly in question.Further, it was desired that for removal of anomaly, the basicconditions stipulated above would have to be fulfilled before initiatingany action. The conditions prescribed in circular dated 28.12.1989read as under:

“It has been pointed out that in some cases, employees whoare senior in the same pay scales and covered by the sameseniority list in a cadre have secured fixation at a lower stagethan their juniors in the same cadre who were promoted after1.1.1987 (after implementation of NCWA-IV) even though thesaid senior employees were getting prior to their promotionthe same pay or higher pay in NCWA-III pay scales as theircases will be checked up and where such an anomaly has occurred, the pay of senior employees in the individual caseswill be stepped up to the level of the pay of junior employeesconcerned from the date the anomaly has arisen (i.e.) after1.1.1987 and from the date the junior was promoted givingrise to the anomaly in question. It has to be ensured that forthe removal of the anomalies, the basic conditions stipulatedabove would have to be fulfilled before initiating any action.”

The letter dated 24.1.1990 issued by the Singareni CollieriesCompany Limited, Kothagudem states that the circular instructionsdated 28.12.1989 will apply only to (a) daily rated employeespromoted to monthly rated and (b) monthly rated employees promotedto higher monthly rated posts in a cadre and covered by the sameseniority list as was followed earlier under NCWA-III. The circulardated 4.10.1996 contemplates that individual cases of anomaliesmay be checked up carefully and after satisfying that anomaly hasarisen in the case of senior employee in the same seniority list andsame designation in a cadre the pay of senior employee will bestepped up to the level of pay of junior employee concerned from thedate the anomaly had arisen i.e. from the date the junior employeestarted getting higher basic pay than the senior employee.

Of course, in these circulars or in the decision of Standardization Committee, it is no where indicated that the daily rated employeespromoted to higher daily rated are entitled for rectification ofanomalies, but the recent circular dated 4.10.1996 contemplatesrectification of anomalies in individual cases also. Simply because, inthe previous circulars the anomalies that may arise between theseniors and juniors working in daily rated and higher daily ratedcategory are not mentioned, it does not mean that the petitioners arenot entitled for rectification of anomaly which had arisen in thecategory of daily rated workers, to be precise, daily rated workers (juniors) and higher daily rated workers (seniors - petitioners). Thefact that juniors who are in the daily rated workers category aredrawing more salary than the seniors whose posts were upgraded tothat of higher daily rated category is not in dispute. Petitioners beingseniors, they were put in higher daily rated category, but whileimplementing NCWA-V, the daily rated workers who are juniors topetitioners, are getting more salary than petitioners. There is nonecessity of going into other details since the arbitrariness is writlarge. Even assuming that the circulars did not take care of thesituation, which had arisen in this case, while borrowing the generalprinciples of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India, respondents could not have denied petitionersthe salary on par with their juniors who are in the daily rated categoryin the guise of implementation of NCWA-V. Therefore, I am of theopinion that the petitioners are entitled for rectification of anomaly thathad arisen while implementing pay scales in NCWA-V and are entitledfor payment of salary on par with their immediate juniors. Further, thereis no reason forthcoming and there is no rationality and the objectssought to be achieved by denying such rectification of anomaly inrespect of daily rated workers those were promoted as higher dailyrated workers. If it is said that the daily rated workers and higher dailyrated workers are separate category, it is the same case with the dailyrated employees prompted to monthly rated and monthly ratedemployees promoted to higher monthly rated category. Therefore, thestand taken by the respondents 1 and 2 that the cases of thepetitioners being isolated one and it is not contemplated in circularsissued earlier, and therefore, they are not entitled for rectification ofanomaly, cannot be countenanced. This is nothing but arbitrary andcapricious.

Conclusion

For all the above reasons, the respondents are directed torectify the anomaly arisen out of the senior employees promoted fromdaily rated category to higher daily rated category compared to theirjuniors in the daily rated category and pay all the arrears and otherbenefits to the petitioners that may arise out of the said anomaly, withina period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. No order as tocosts.

Date: .12.2007DA

____________

C.V.RAMULU, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

28.12.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

W.P.Nos.5416 and 5439 of 1999

Date: 28[th] December, 2007

W.P.No.5416 of 1999

Between:

Md.Osman Quadri & others.

.. Petitioners

And

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,Kothagudem, Khammam district, rep. by itsChairman and Managing Director & others.

W.P.No.5439 of 1999Between:S.Hussaini & others.

And

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,Kothagudem, Khammam district, rep. by itsChairman and Managing Director & others.

.. Respondents

.. Petitioners

.. Respondents