- (1.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits arising from the judgment of the Kerala High Court made in O. P. No. 13651 of 2001 dated 20. 10. 2003 as confirmed by the Division bench of the Kerala High Court in W. A. No. 293 of 2004 as well as by the Supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 20319 of 2005, to the petitioners, who are identically situated, by stepping up petitioner''s pay on par with that of the petitioner''s junior Rajan C. Abraham with effect from 2. 1. 1993 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, etc.
(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. (a) Petitioners entered into the services of the Food Corporation of India as Assistant Grade-III and subsequently they were promoted to Grade-II and then to Grade-I in the year 1977-78. Petitioners'' junior Rajan C. Abraham was promoted to Assistant Grade-I in the year 1985. Subsequent to the wage revision that took place with effect from 1. 2. 1992, the said junior was paid higher pay than the petitioners with effect from 2. 1. 1993. Petitioners with other seniors, who were working in the Kerala region, made representation to the Regional/zonal/ Head Office for rectification of the pay anomaly by stepping up their pay on par with that of Rajan C. Abraham. Respondent/corporation, stepped up the pay by applying circular No. 13 dated 9. 7. 1997 and removed the pay anomaly and enhanced their pay on par with that of their junior rajan C. Abraham. The said order was erroneously cancelled by the respondent and ordered recovery of the enhanced pay. (b) The seniors of Kerala Region filed O. P. No. 13651 of 2001 (A) before the Kerala High court at ernakulam and challenged the cancellation of stepping up of pay and the said O. P. was allowed by the learned single Judge by order dated 20. 10. 2003. The respondent/corporation preferred w. A. No. 293 of 2004. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal on 2. 6. 2005 and held that petitioners therein, who are seniors, are entitled for stepping up of their pay on par with that of their juniors and quashed the revision of salary. The respondent/corporation filed S. L. P. No. 20319 of 2005 before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed on 18. 5. 2005 and thereafter the respondent/corporation implemented the said order on 20. 10. 2005 and consequently the original order of stepping up of pay issued in favour of the seniors on par with their junior Rajan C. Abraham was restored and consequential arrears was paid. (c) The case of the petitioners is that they are also identically placed and their pay was also stepped up on par with their junior viz. , Rajan C. Abraham. The respondent/corporation has chosen to cancel the order stepping up petitioners pay and ordered recovery of excess pay allegedly drawn by the petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 16 opted for voluntary retirement in the year 2004 and their alleged excess pay was recovered in one lumpsum from their retirement benefits, ranging from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 80,000/ -. (d) Petitioners further stated that consequent to the dismissal of the SLP filed by the respondents, against the Kerala High Court''s order, petitioners submitted representation to the respondent/corporation seek ing extension of benefits flowing from the judgment of the Kerala high Court. Petitioners also submit that some of the petitioners are seniors to those persons who preferred O. P. before the Kerala High Court and the same can be ascertained from the seniority list issued on 31. 12. 1992. The Zonal Office in Chennai addressed letters on 8. 1 1. 2005, 22. 11. 2005 and 7. 12. 2005 to the headquarters at New Delhi and stated that the petitioners are also identically situated as that of the petitioners before the Kerala High Court and the Headquarters'' advise was sought as to whether the benefit of Kerala High Court judgment could be extended to the petitioners. Seniority in the grade of Assistants Grade-I was maintained in Zone-wise and the southern zone include four states, namely, Tamil Nadu, kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, which has a Zonal office. The representation given by the petitioners having not been considered and the recovery having been made, which is contrary to the decision of the Kerala High Court referred above, petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the claim of the petitioners is fully sustainable and the letter of the Zonal office, Chennai dated 8. 11. 2005 addressed to the Deputy General manager, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, after getting a legal opinion from the legal division recommended for restoration of petitioners stepping up of pay and the said recommendation is extracted hereunder, "the Legal Division has opined that when similarly placed persons are denied for want of court order, the same benefit which were extended to the petitioners, it would lead to number of litigations and ultimately the order passed in the W. A. No. 293/2004 and in SLP. 20319/2005 is likely to follow and would lead to infructuous/avoidable expenditure on legal cases. Legal division has, therefore, opined that it would be appropriate to extend similar benefit to all similarly placed persons to that of the petitioners. Zonal Finance also concurred with the above views. As the Hqrs. has been monitoring the progress of the case from time to time and issuing directions and guidelines at the various stages right from the beginning in the case filed by Shri c. Madhavan Pillai and others, W. P. No. 10651/2000 filed by Shri B. Gurumurthy and 8 others, w. P. No. 26440/2001 filed by Jacob Zachariah, W. P. No. 21084/2003 filed by Shri L. N. Murthy and 4 others, it is felt that the Head Office may consider the case of non-petitioners in south zone for extension of similar benefits on par with the petitioners in O. P. No. 13651/2001 and also to the petitioners in various W. Ps. , W. P. No. 10651/2000 filed by Shri B. Gurumurthy and others, w. P. 26440/2001 filed by Jacob Zachariah and W. P. 21084/2003 filed by Shri L. L. N. Murthy and 4 others in A. P. High Court and communicate decision with regard to extension of the benefits in terms of Supreme Court in SLP. No. 20319/2005 or otherwise at an early date. " The learned counsel therefore submitted that the legal division of the Southern Zone properly advised the respondent/corporation to extend the benefits to the petitioners also and the inaction on the part of the respondent is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. Learned Senior counsel cited the decisions reported in 1999 SCC (Lands)788 (Govind Ram Purohit and another v. Jagjiwan Chandra and others); (2003) 12 SCC 192 (State of Karnataka and others v. N. Parameshwarappa and others); (2006) 1 MLJ 695 (S. A. Kanthimathi v. Director of School Education, Madras and Others); 1995 (1) SCC (Suppl) 18 (Sahib ram v. State of Haryana) and AIR 1997 SC 3588 (K. C. Sharma v. Union of India) and submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as they are also seniors to Rajan C. Abraham.;