B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 10.7.1995 in Writ Petition No. 825/91, by which the claim of the respondent of stepping up the pay scale has been allowed, by placing reliance upon the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. General Insurance Corporation and Ors. 1994 (1) RLR 757. The present appellants have also filed appeal against the said judgment and order in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra), wherein the operation of the said judgment and order has been stayed by the Division Bench and the appeal is pending for final hearing before the Jaipur Bench of this Court.
(2.) RESPONDENT is an employee of the appellant Company which floated a rationalisation scheme in 1985, amending the earlier rationalisation scheme of 1974, bracketing/bunching the employees in two or more consecutive stages together and fixing a revised pay scale for them. Thus, the scheme provided for restructuring the pay scales. For the purpose of implementation of the said rationalisation scheme, all the employees of the appellant Company were asked, either to opt for re -fixation from 01.4.1983 or from 15.10.1985. Consequences/ advantages/benefits of opting for refixation with effect from 01.4.1983 and from 15. 10.1985 were made clear and explained. Employees including the respondent, after making their own calculations/assessments of the advantages and dis -advantages and examining the pros and cons of both the dates to opt for refixation, made their options. Respondent opted for implementation of the scheme with effect from 01.4.1983 and he was given the benefit of the scheme accordingly in 1985 itself. Respondent made a grievance by his representation dated 22.6.1989 contained in Annex. 2 to the writ petition that acceptance of scheme with effect from 01.4.1984 has caused him financial loss, as persons junior to him who had opted refixation from 15.10.1985 were in a gainful position. He also furnished dates giving the difference of such gains and losses and prayed that such an anomaly should be removed. He made the following prayer in his representation: I, therefore, request your goodself to kindly provide appropriate relief for fixation and in that case I am prepared to re -opt the date of fixation and to refund the arrears, if required.
(3.) MATTER was referred to the national management and subsequently his representation was rejected and the order was communicated to him vide letter dated 7.11.1990. Being aggrieved and dis -satisfied, respondent preferred the writ petition, which has been allowed. Hence, the instant appeal by the employer Company.;