1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 63 of 2002 RAVEENDRAN KR V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS Mr. SP ARORA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. ANUJ KALA, for the respondent Date of Order : 10.9.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. JUDGMENT This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2001 dismissing the petition, on the ground, that the I.D.A. scale was not applicable to the deputationists, and it was given only to permanent employees, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to that. The case of the petitioner is, that he was working on the post of Inspector, 172 Battalion, B.S.F. Srikaranpur, and was selected in the respondent company as Security Officer on deputation, and was relieved for joining there on deputation vide Annex.1. Accordingly, the petitioner joined there. The further case of the petitioner is that on deputation, the petitioner either could have continued to have drawn the pay in the pay scale of parent department with deputation allowances, or could opt for drawl of a salary which the company fixed for Security Officer with all other allowances, and accordingly, the 2 petitioner opted for the salary at the company's scale fixed for Security Officer, with all other allowances (Rs.2000 + allowances) vide Annex.3 dated 6.4.1992. According to the petitioner, vide letter dated 24.12.1992, it was considered expedient to changeover to I.D.A. structure w.e.f. 2.1.1990, which was intimated vide letter dated 18.11.1993 Annex.4, and since at the time of joining he had exercised option to draw salary in the pay scale of the company, being Rs.2000-3200, according to the changeover to I.D.A. pay scale, he should have been fixed in the revised pay scale of 2650-5100 w.e.f. 1.1.1990, Rs.4000-7150 w.e.f. 1.1.1992, and 4800-8275 w.e.f. 1.1.1993, in which regard he submitted representation Annex.5 on 28.12.1994, which was refused vide Annex.6 dated 29.3.1994. The deputation of the petitioner came to an end since 15.3.1996, and he has been repatriated to the parent department. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner raised was regarding the difference in the pay scale, consequent upon changeover to I.D.A. pay scale, for the period during which he remained on deputation. In our view, a look at Annex.4 shows, that it appears only to be a circular endorsing the changeover to I.D.A. pay structure, circulated to all persons, and clarifying, that if the addressee has any query or clarification, prior to its implementation, he may write to the undersigned. Then according to the petitioner it was vide Annex.5 dated 28.12.1994 i.e. practically one year thereafter, that he sought re-fixation in the new I.D.A. pay structure, which was changed vide Annex.4 dated 18.11.1993. The original (changed) pay structure 3 communication dated 24.12.1992, has been produced by the respondent as Annex.R/1, and a look at that shows, that thereby the revised scales of pay on I.D.A. pattern were prescribed, by providing as under:- “The existing scales of pay of the employees of VSNL who were transferred from the erstwhile Overseas Communications Service to the Company on foreign service terms without deputation allowance on 1.4.1986 and subsequently absorbed on 2.1.1990 would stand revised w.e.f. 2.1.90 as follows :………..” A bare reading of this language shows, that this was applicable only to the employees, who were transferred from overseas communication to the company without deputation allowances on 1.4.1986, and were subsequently absorbed on 2.1.1990. This does not purport to apply to the deputationists with the company. Even the earlier part of the communication also provides, for applicability of the scales to the employees recruited on or after 1.1.1989. Deputation cannot be equated with recruitment, or absorption, either. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to lay the claim as laid in the writ petition. It is a different story, that the period for which the relief is claimed, is the period during which the petitioner had served at Chennai, and thus, the entire cause of action for the relief, arose in Chennai only, and there is a serious question, as to whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Likewise, the petitioner had been informed vide Anex.9 to be not entitled to the relief as claimed, which is dated 12.8.1996, 4 informing that his request cannot be acceded to, and that decision had already been communicated to him way-back on 31.10.1995, notwithstanding that the petitioner simply went on addressing communications, including serving the legal notice, which was unnecessarily replied, but then writ was filed in the year 1999 i.e. after more than 3 years of Annex.9, and the earlier communication of 1995. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of delay and latches also. However, instead of going into these questions, we have examined the matter on merits, and do not find the petitioner to be entitled to any relief. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused the relief to the petitioner. The appeal thus has no force and is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/