Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Order of learned single Judge allowing writ petition filed by the respondents was affirmed.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondents retired from the services of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short the Board) on 30.4.1990 after attaining the age of superannuation. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (in short the Corporation), is the successor company of the Board which came into existence with effect from 1-2-1999 by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (in short the Reforms Act). The pay scales of the employees were revised with effect from 1-7-1990 by which time the respondents herein were drawing maximum pay in the concerned scale. The rational of fixing the date with effect from 1-7-1990 was that employees who retired prior to 1-7-1990 are entitled to D.A. at the rate of 38% on the pension whereas the D.A. payable to pensioners retired on or after 1-7-1990 is 12.4% but, not before the date of issue of the order. The revised pay scales permitted grant of three annual increments beyond the time scale in regard to those who had reached or crossed the maximum pay as on 1-7-1986. However, in respect of the respondents herein the additional amount was shown as personal pay and the stagnation increments were adjusted towards the said additional amount.
(3.) Questioning correctness of the action of the Corporation and its functionaries the respondents herein filed a writ petition. Prayer was to direct the appellants herein to fix their pension and other terminal benefits at par with other UDCs, retired on or after 1-7-1990 and to pay all the arrears of pensions and other terminal benefits. Learned single Judge having regard to the intended purpose of the scheme held that the respondents have been discriminated while calculating the pension on the ground that they had retired prior to the introduction of the scheme. Stand of the employer in essence was that the Boards proceedings Ms. No. 481 dated 4-2-1991 had application only to those who were on its rolls as on 1-7-1990. In view of the fact that the respondents retired on 30-4-1990 the said scheme has no application to them. In any event the scheme was introduced keeping in view the settlement dated 29-1-1991 entered into between the Wage Negotiation Committee and the Board before the Joint Commissioner of Labour and State Commission Officer in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and the same cannot be the subject matter of interpretation in the writ petition. In the Appeal its stand before learned single Judge was reiterated before the Division Bench. Stand of the writ petitioners was that the learned single Judge was justified in its conclusion.;