S.B.Sinha J. - (1.) Are the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expection applicable in the case of the petitioners who were Chief Engineers and Engineers in Chief working with the first respondent in the matter of bifurcation of duty is the question involved in this application.
(2.) The petitioners claim themselves to be appointed in terms of an advertisement as contained in annexure 'A' to the writ application. The respondent, however, contends that out of 20 writ-petitioners, 9 have been appointed by way of transfer or through Calcutta Dock System/establishment, and 6 were appointed after the advertisement and thus only 5 were appointed pursuant to the said advertisement. In terms of the aforesaid advertisement as contained in annexure 'A' to the writ application, Chief Engineer was to receive a gross emoluments including allowances at the minimum of the scale of Rs. 4400/- and Engineer in Chief at Rs. 3750/-. The petitioners in the writ application have alleged that they were serving in the Merchant Navy and only in view of the aforementioned promise made in the said advertisement, they chose to join the services of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, earlier the consistent practice was that although the Chief Engineers and Engineers in Chief would be allotted duty for 12 hours wherefor they would get overtime allowances for four hours, however, the said practice has recently been changed and the duty hours have been fixed at 8 hours and only in case of actual overtime, they would be entitled to overtime allowance. Bifurcation of such duty hours, according to the petitioners, violates not only their fundamental rights as contained in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, but also is contrary to the doctrine of legitimate/reasonable expectation and/or promissory estoppel. The fact that the petitioners are at present getting much more higher salary is not disputed. Unfortuantely, neither the petitioners nor the respondents have annexed any chart to show as to how and in what manner their minimum gross emoluments albeit approximate had been calculated.
(3.) Before adverting to the question aforementioned, relevant provisions of Major Port Trust Act, 1963 may be taken note of thereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The said Act was enacted to make provision for the Constitution of Port Authorities for certain major ports in India and to vest the administration, control and management of such ports in such authorities and for matters connected therewith. Section 5 of the said Act provides that the Board is to be a body corporate and can sue or be sued in its own name. Chapter III of the said Act provides for the recruitment of the staff of the Board. Section 23 provides for preparation and sanction a schedule of the employees of the Board who it deems necessary and proper to maintain for the purpose of the said Act and as such, schedule shall indicate therein the designations and grades of employees and the salaries, fees and allowance which are proposed to be paid to them. It is admitted that a regulation has been framed in terms of section 28 of the Major Port Trust Act with the sanction of the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 124 of the Act known as Calcutta Port Trust Employees' (Haldia Dock Complex) (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulation, 1985. The said regulation was amended in the year 1991 as would appear from the Gazette of India published on 24th July, 1991 wherein salary of the Chief Engineer has been shown as 2090/- to 3190/-, the post being a selection post. No fees and allowance which are proposed to be paid to them had been stated therein. Admittedly, in terms of section 28(E) read with section 124 of the Act, the Board was entitled to make regulation for the purpose of regulating the appointment and the condition of service of its employees. The regulation has been defined in section 2(W) of the Act to mean regulation made under the said Act. Section 123(e) also provides for the regulation under the general power of Board, inter alia for the efficient and proper administration of the Board. However, the same is subject to the restriction contained in section 124 of the Act. Central Government has also been empowered to make the first regulation in terms of section 126 thereof. The fact that duty hours and/or provisions for over time allowance had not been made in the said regulation is neither in doubt nor in dispute.;