BITHIKA RAY Vs. INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION BANK OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION BANK OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
G.R.Bhattacharjee, J. -
(1.)The four writ petitioners were originally working In the Calcutta Office of the Entrepreneurial Guidance Bureau (EGB) run by the Indian Investment Centre (IIC) which is a Central Government Organisation. The petitioner No.l was appointed as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator in October, 1977. The petitioner No.2 was appointed as Stenographer in 1974. The petitioner No.3 was appointed as Peon In 1973 and the petitioner No.4 as Farash/Sweeper in 1972. In or about 1981 the Government of India decided to wind up the offices of the EGB run by the TIC at several centres Including Calcutta with effect from the afternoon of the 31st December, 1981. The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) was requested to take over the concerned offices of the EGB with effect from the 1st January, 1982 either by itself or by such organisation as it might designate or set up for the purpose with a view to peventing the less of employment to the staff working in the concerned offices and also to ensure the continuity of the useful functions performed by those offices. It was decided that the staff would continue to get the pay and allowances which they had been drawing in the office of the EGB. Accordingly, the IDBI requested the Industrial Reconstitution Corporation of India Ltd. (IRCI) to examine the feasibility of offering employment to the concerned staff in the Organisation and the IRCI in turn offered temporary appointment to the petitioners in the Calcutta office for a period of five years on certain terms and conditions including the term that the petitioners would continue to get the pay and allowances and other benefits which they had been enjoying in the office of the EGB for the said period of temporary appointment and that the service rules of IIC would continue to operate during the above period unless otherwise notified. It was also stipulated by the IRCI that after completion of five years of satisfactory service the Corporation would consider the feasibility of granting them permanent employment with the Corporation subject to the vacancies existing at the material time and depending on their performance. The petitioners agreed in accept the temporary employment accordingly on the proposed terms and conditions. It may be mentioned here that subsequently Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) came into existence in the place of IRCI.
(2.)Sometime in May 1986 the Indian Investment Centre issued notices slating that the services of the petitioners who had been working on deputation in the IRBI since 1.1.1982 were no longer required by the IRBI and accordingly their services were terminated by the Indian Investment Centre under Rule 13 of the IIC Service Rules on payment of salary for three months in lieu of the notice period. Consequently the IRBI also informed the petitioners that as their services were terminated by the Indian Investment Center, the temporary appointment which they had been holding under the IRBI also stood automatically terminated. Thus the petitioners' services under the IIC and the deputation services on temporary basis under the IRBI stood terminated in May, 1986. The petitioners however applied to the IRBI for employment and they were granted new employment under the IRBI on new terms and conditions stipulated in their respective appointment letters. Annexures I and J, both dated the 10th June, 1986 are two new appointment letters Issued by the IRBI in favour of the petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 respectively. The payscale offered to the concerned petitioners and the starting pay in such pay-scale have been mentioned in the respective appointment letters. The terms and conditions of appointment were accepted by the petitioners.
(3.)It is the petitioners' contention that the pay-scales awarded for the petitioners on their new appointment under the IRBI in June 1986 were determined and fixed with reference to the pay-scale which the petitioners were enjoying under the Indian Investment Centre and subsequently on the revision of the pay-scales of the Central Government employees on the basis of the 4th pay revision with effect from the 1st January, 1986, the pay-scales of the employees of the Indian Investment Centre were also similarly revised and in view of such revision the Indian Investment Centre later on paid to the petitioners arrear on the basis of revised pay-scales for the period from the 1st January, 1986 to the date of termination o services In May. 1986, that is, during the service tenure under the Indian Investment Centre. The contention of the petitioners is that in June, 1986 when the petitioners were given fresh appointment under the IRBI there was no opportunity to fix their pay on the basis of the revised pay-scale because the revised pay-scales although given retrespective effect from 1st January, 1986, were announced subsequent to June, 1986, but once the revised pay-scales were adopted by the IIC with effect from 1.1.1986 and the arrear pay on the basis of such revised pay-scales were also paid to the petitioners for the period for which they were in service under the IIC, the petitioners' pay-scales under the IRBI should have been subsequently fixed suitably with reference to the revised pay-scales adopted by the IIC with effect from 1.1.1986. The petitioners pray for relief by way of grant of appropriate pay-scales to them under the IRBI. They also pray for the benefit of continuity of service under the IRBI by reckoning the entire service period under the IIC and they claim seniority accordingly. Alternatively, they claim gratuity according to law for the services they rendered under the IIC. They have also the grievance that the entire leave salary etc. payable to them for their services under the IIC have not been paid.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.