THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.1945 of 2000 ORDER: In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is claiming two reliefs. The first is to direct the respondents to pay him the pay in the scale of Rs.5150-6900 which is the scale of pay of the Deputy Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (for short - VPT) even though he retired as the Deputy Chairman of the second respondent i.e. Paradip Port Trust (for short - PPT) during the period he worked in the said post. The second is to direct the respondents to pay him or allow him medical reimbursement as per the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employees (Contributory Outdoor & Indoor Medical benefits after retirement) Regulations, 1989, for the expenditure incurred by him in connection with his wife’s medical treatment. 2. The petitioner is seeking a mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction for the above two reliefs on the ground that he is entitled to them. The then Secretary of PPT i.e. the second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing both the reliefs. The point is whether the petitioner is entitled to the above two reliefs. 3. The petitioner admittedly joined in VPT in July 1969 and by the year 1980 he was promoted to the post of Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer. While he was so working, in the year 1991 the Government of India i.e. the first respondent herein deputed him to work as Deputy Chairman in PPT which is a ‘D’- category port. According to the petitioner the scale of pay of Deputy Chairman in VPT was Rs.5150-6900 while the scale of pay for the said post in PPT was Rs.5000-6750. The petitioner says that in the order by which he was deputed it has been specifically mentioned that he would have the protection of scale of pay and other service benefits which he was enjoying while working in VPT and that therefore he is entitled for the scale of pay given to the Deputy Chairman in VPT though he was deputed to work as Deputy Chairman in PPT. Admittedly the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.1991 while working as Deputy Chairman in PPT. It is the case of the petitioner that VPT, PPT and other port trusts have been created under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short – Act), and therefore all the port trusts, irrespective of their separate scales of pay earlier, are bound to follow uniform scales of pay and there cannot be any anomaly and that therefore he is entitled to salary and emoluments at the rates payable to the Deputy Chairman of VPT during the period he worked as Deputy Chairman of PPT. 4. In support of his claim for the pay scales the petitioner has pointed out that one Y.Parthasaradhi an officer of VPT was promoted as Deputy Chairman in Madras Port Trust (for short – MPT) on orders of the Government of India but he was allowed the scale of pay of Deputy Chairman of VPT as both were C-category ports and therefore he is entitled to the same pay scales. In this connection the petitioner also pointed out that another officer by name Sri Rokkam who was his junior refused to accept promotion to the category of Deputy Chairman of PPT and was subsequently promoted as Deputy Chairman of VPT and hence he could have the scale of pay of Rs.5150-6900 and as he (petitioner) was sent on deputation to PPT he lost the said pay scale and therefore he should also be granted the said pay scale. This is the ground on which he claimed the first relief. 5. Then turning to the second relief relating to the claim of medical reimbursement, the petitioner’s plea is that VPT adopted the medical benefit scheme known as Madras Port Trust Employees (Contributory Outdoor and Indoor Medical facilities after retirement) Regulations, 1989, and after retiring from service on 30.11.1991 he became a member of the said scheme by payment of one time deposit of Rs.1200/- on 09.06.1993 and the VPT also adopted the same. His further plea is that PPT is also in the process of adopting the above medical regulations subject to the approval of the first respondent and that it has also addressed a letter dated 06.05.1998 to the first respondent seeking its approval to adopt the above medical benefit scheme. The petitioner’s grievance is that according to the above medical benefit scheme he is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,457-26ps which he spent towards treatment of his wife’s disease i.e. Osteoarthritis since 1990 and that therefore he is entitled to the said amount also from PPT. 6. Regarding the claim of the petitioner for giving him the scale of pay given to the Deputy Chairman of VPT the stand of PPT is this. According to PPT, it has received a Telex Message No.A-12022/8/88-PE I dated 18.05.1991 approving the appointment of the petitioner as its Deputy Chairman in the time scale of Rs.2450-3350 from the date of his assumption of charge till 30.11.1991 which is the date of superannuation of the petitioner and the said Telex Message was followed by an appointment order dated 24.07.1991 of the first respondent. The PPT has further pleaded that thereafter the first respondent also issued another Telex Message dated 18.11.1991 indicating that the first respondent has approved the appointment of the petitioner as its Deputy Chairman by way of transfer on a permanent basis. Its further plea is that by reason of the above Telex Message dated 18.11.1991 which the petitioner accepted he became a regular employee of PPT and the question of protecting his pay scales which was in force in VPT does not arise as he is not entitled to the same. The PPT further says that initially the petitioner was in the scale of Rs.2450-3350 as its Deputy Chairman and later on it was revised to Rs.5000-6750 and the petitioner accepted the same. Thus in substance the stand of PPT is that since the petitioner became its regular employee he cannot claim the pay of Deputy Chairman of VPT and it further stated that the petitioner joined its service on 31.05.1991 as its Deputy Chairman and retired from its service on 30.11.1991. 7. Regarding the claim of the petitioner that all port trusts should have uniform pay scales, the plea of PPT is that though all the port trusts are constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short Act), pay scales are fixed according to the categorization of the ports and they are independent units and therefore according to that categorization pay scales are fixed for the employees in the PPT and they cannot claim parity with the pay scales existing in the other port trusts and therefore the petitioner cannot get any relief. 8. Then coming to the relief of medical reimbursement the plea of PPT is that since the petitioner joined the medical benefit scheme of Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employees (Contributory Outdoor and Indoor Medical facilities after retirement) Regulations, 1989, by contributing one time deposit of Rs.1200/- on 09.06.1993 i.e. after his retirement he has to make his claim if any and if it is valid before VPT and that PPT is not liable for the same. It is clear that PPT is referring to Madras scheme mentioned by the petitioner as adopted by VPT. It is also pleaded that subsequently the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner has been examined by the management of PPT with reference to its medical admissibility schemes and by letter dated 16.10.1997 he has been informed that his claim is not admissible. Thus it is pleaded that the medical reimbursement claim cannot also be granted. 9. In the course of arguments the learned counsel for petitioner virtually reiterated the pleadings of the petitioner and argued that the petitioner is entitled to both the reliefs claimed by him whereas the learned Standing Counsel for PPT repelled the said contentions based on its pleadings which are already stated supra. 10. The question relating to the relief of pay scales is now first taken up. It is the specific plea of PPT that though all port trusts are constituted under the Act all are independent units or bodies and each port trust has got its own pay scales and employees of one port trust cannot claim pay scales of another though such pay scales are higher and this is not permissible at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision in the Act or any other statutory rule or any scheme framed by the Government of India having the force of law under which the employee of one port trust can claim pay scales of the other port trust on the ground that he is performing similar job. This is the first minus point for the petitioner. 11. It is true that a perusal of the appointment order dated 24.07.1991 of the first respondent filed as annexure-B to the counter of the second respondent would show that in the said order the petitioner was given the option to have his pay fixed in the pay scale of Rs.2250-3350 attached to the post of Deputy Chairman of PPT under the normal rules or to draw pay of the post held by him i.e. Financial Adviser and the Chief Accounts Officer in his parent department i.e. VPT and it reads as if it is a deputation order, but what should be noted is that he was not given the option to have his pay fixed in the scale attached to the Deputy Chairman of the VPT. Be that as it may, subsequently the first respondent i.e. the Government of India issued another telex message dated 18.11.1991 approving the proposal to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Chairman of PPT on permanent basis by way of transfer. This telex message would show that the PPT would discharge the pay, pensionary and other retirement benefits of the petitioner. In other words it supports the plea of PPT that though the petitioner was initially appointed on deputation, he was later on regularly appointed as Deputy Chairman of PPT. The petitioner did not dispute the above permanent appointment by way of transfer and it therefore follows that he became a regular employee of PPT and retired from service of the PPT. It therefore follows that he can claim only the pay which was payable to the Deputy Chairman of PPT and he cannot claim parity with the pay scales in force in the other port trusts. 12. The petitioner sought to make a comparison of the cases of one Y. Parthasaradhi, an officer of VPT, who was promoted as Deputy Chairman in MPT and another Sri Rokkam his junior in VPT who refused to go as Deputy Chairman of PPT and was subsequently promoted as Deputy Chairman of VPT and who were getting the scales of Rs.5150-6900 and claimed that he is also entitled to the same pay. It may be noted that MPT and VPT are stated to be ‘C’-category ports and they are stated to be having higher pay scales whereas PPT is a ‘D’-category port and it is for this reason PPT claimed that petitioner having become a regular employee of PPT cannot compare his case with the above two cases and claim parity in the scales as the Government of India by way of policy decision did not approve uniform pay scales in all port trusts. There is no reason to reject this stand taken by the PPT. The petitioner could not bring to the notice of this court any provision of law or any statutory rule to enforce the relief claimed by him on the plea that uniform pay scales should be maintained by all the port trusts. This is the second minus point for the petitioner regarding the first relief claimed by him and shows that his claim cannot be upheld. 13. Then coming to the second relief claimed by the petitioner with regard to medical reimbursement the position is no better for him. It should be noted that the petitioner joined the medical benefit scheme of Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employees (Contributory Outdoor and Indoor Medical facilities after retirement) Regulations, 1989, by contributing one time deposit of Rs.1200/- on 09.06.1993 i.e. after his retirement. According to PPT, it did not have such scheme and the above VPT medical scheme was not adopted by it. It is of-course the plea of the petitioner that PPT also is in the process of adopting the above medical benefit scheme of VPT but no material has been placed before this court to show that the said scheme has been in fact adopted by the PPT. On the other hand, the plea of PPT is that the petitioner’s claim to avail medical facilities available in VPT has been examined and it was referred by the Chairman of VPT by his letter dated 05.12.1998 to the Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, and a copy of the said letter was also marked to its Chairman but the Government of India did not communicate any decision. Its further repeated plea is that all port trusts are independent bodies and the regulations adopted by one port trust does not automatically apply to another port trust and hence the petitioner’s plea that Y.Parthasaradhi’s claim for medical reimbursement was accepted by MPT cannot be a ground by itself for the petitioner to claim medical reimbursement from it (PPT). Here also the petitioner has not been able to show any statutory provision or rule to hold that petitioner is entitled to the medical reimbursement claimed by him and that this court can give mandamus to the PPT or the VPT directing them to pay the same. Hence the petitioner cannot be granted any relief even with regard to medical reimbursement. 14. For the aforesaid reasons it follows that this writ petition has to fail and the same is accordingly dismissed but without costs. ________________________ N. RAVISHANKAR, J 29th October 2011 CVRK