ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated February 5, 2001 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No. 6 to give effect to the revised scales of pay with effect from January 1 1992, in terms of office memorandum dated July 19, 1995 and with effect from January 1, 1997 in terms of office memorandum dated June 25, 1999. It was further directed that this fixation of pay scale shall be done within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order and if there is any arrear of payment the same shall be paid in instalments.
(2.) Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the Management. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the present writ petition has been filed by the Burn Standard Officers' Association (Head Office), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The grievances of the members of the association are that despite being officers of the respondent No.6 which is a subsidiary of the respondent No.4 and which in turn is a Government of India Undertaking, their pay scale has not been revised in terms of office memorandum dated July 19, 1995 with effect from January 1, 1992 and subsequently also in terms of the memorandum dated June 25, 1999. The respondent No. 6 became a sick company and a scheme was framed by the Board of Industrial Finance & Reconstruction (BIFR) and the same is being implemented. The other public sector undertakings have implemented the revision of pay scales but this sick unit has not revised the pay scales of its employees. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent No.6 to pay them the revised pay scales. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents and it was contended mat the respondent has no objection to implement this revision of pay scale but because of the financial crisis the company is unable to pay the revised pay scales however as and when the condition improves and funds are available they will implement the revision of pay scale. It was also contended that the scheme was framed by the Board, therefore, by virtue of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Management cannot implement revision of pay as per memorandum dated June 25, 1999. The learned single Judge held that there is a discrimination that so far as the present association is concerned a plea has been taken of financial crisis but so far as the new appointees are concerned, benefits have been given and it is alleged that this fact has not been denied in the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents. It was also held by the learned single Judge that according to the Scheme framed by the BIFR there are provisions for meeting the demands on account of pay of wages of the employees including the officers in view of the inflationary trend in the market. Hence the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the management.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged before us that the BIFR has sanctioned the revival scheme on April 16, 1999 and the office memorandum for giving effect to the revised pay scale with effect from January 1, 1997 was issued by the Government on June 25, 1999. It is submitted that the scheme was framed by the BIFR on April 16, 1999, prior to the issuance of this memorandum. Therefore, this revision of pay scale could not be included in the Scheme dated April 16, 1999 prepared by the BIFR. It is also contended that the respondent No.6 has already implemented the memorandum of the Government of India on July 19, 1995 and revision of pay has been implemented w.e.f. January 1, 1992 for officers from January 1, 2000 and that the arrears on this score from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1999 would be paid to the officers in instalments only when it would be in a position to generate requisite funds from within its own resources for such purpose. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the revival scheme has been sanctioned by the BIFR, therefore, the respondent No.6 on its own cannot extend the benefits of revised pay scale unless the Scheme is modified by the BIFR.;