CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12113 OF 2000 (In the matter of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). 1. SHEO KUMAR SHUKLA, SON OF LATE BAIJNATH SHUKLA, RESIDENT OF DURGAPUR, P.S. P.O. AND DISTRICT- KATIHAR. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 3. NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURES CORPORATION LTD., A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHARTERED BANK BUILDINGS (2ND FLOOR), 4 N.S. ROAD, CALCUTTA- 700001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-DIRECTOR. 4. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHARTERED BANK BUILDINGS (2ND FLOOR), 4 N.S.ROAD, CALCUTTA- 700001. 5. OFFICIATING ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHARTERED BANK BUILDINGS (2ND FLOOR), 4 N.S.ROAD, CALCUTTA- 700001. 6. DEPUTY MANAGER (PERSONNEL), NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURES CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHARTERED BANK BUILDINGS (2ND FLOOR), 4 N.S.ROAD, CALCUTTA-700001. 7. UNIT HEAD, R.B.H.M., NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURERS CORPORATION LIMITED UNIT, KATIHAR. 8. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH WORKING AS PERSONNEL INCHARGE NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURERS CORPORATION LIMITED UNIT, R.B.H.M., KATIHAR. 9. ARUN KUMAR CHAKRAVORTY WORKING AS DEPUTY MANAGER (FINANCE), NATIONAL JUTE MANUFACTURERS CORPORATION LIMITED UNIT, RBHM, KATIHAR :-- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, C.G.C. For the Corporation : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate. ========= - 2 - P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Union of India and the National Jute Manufactures Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation). 2. Petitioner is the employee of the Corporation. He has filed this writ application praying inter alia to direct the Corporation to grant him the revised scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- as has been stated under letter dated 13.7.1992, Annexure-2, whereunder Petitioner was transferred from the clerical cadre to the teacher cadre in the service of the Corporation. Paragraph 3 of the letter dated 13.7.1992 is quoted hereinbelow :- “3. As per terms of the tripartite agreement dated 26.04.84, your pay and Dearness Allowance shall be as per the Pay Scale and Dearness Allowance applicable to the Primary Teachers of the State of Bihar from time to time. Accordingly, you will be paid Basic Pay of Rs. 1200/- in the Pay Scale of (Rs. 1200-30-1380-EB-30- 1560-EB-40-1800-EB-40-2040) plus DA of Rs. 852/- (at the rate of 71% of your Basic Salary) per month now prevalent for your Category.” 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in the light of - 3 - the instructions contained in letter dated 13.7.1992, Annexure-2 he has been allowed revised scale admissible to the Primary Teachers of the State of Bihar until 1997 which fact would also appear from Memo No. 3031 dated 5.12.1997, Annexure-3. It is further submitted that he has also been allowed dearness relief admissible to the employees of the Primary Teacher of the Government of Bihar under Memo No. 844 dated 12.3.1998, Annexure-4. Further revision of scale is not being allowed to the petitioner after 1999. He has filed this writ application praying inter alia to direct the Corporation to grant him further revision of pay which is admissible to the Primary Teachers of the State of Bihar. 4. Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer. He states that the Corporation is undergoing a financial crunch on account of paucity of fund and is likely to be wound up and the case is being presently examined by B.I.F.R. In the light of the poor financial condition prevailing in the Corporation no employee of the Corporation has been allowed the benefit of revision of pay since 1987 but considering the fact that petitioner is a teacher he has been allowed the benefit of the revised scale under letter dated 13.07.1992, 05.12.1997 and 12.03.1998, Annexures-2, 3 and 4. Further, revision of scale shall be admissible to the petitioner as and when other employees of the Corporation shall be allowed the revised scale. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, Union of India and the Corporation, I am of the view that the petitioner has already been allowed revised scale in the light of the instructions contained in letter - 4 - dated 05.12.1997 and 12.3.1998, Annexures- 3 and 4 but thereafter no other employee of the Corporation has been given the benefit of revised scale, his case for grant of revised scale cannot be considered in isolation. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with direction to the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of revised scale in the light of the instructions contained in letters dated 13.07.1992, 05.12.1997 and 12.03.1998, Annexures 2,3 and 4 as and when the Corporation decides to grant the benefit of revised scale to the other employees. It is, however, made clear that if the other employees of the Corporation have already been allowed the benefit of further revised scale then the case of Petitioner for grant of higher scale in the light of the revision accepted by the Corporation should also be considered and granted in accordance with law. The Patna High Court The 22nd April, 2010. P.K.P./N.A.F.R. (V.N.Sinha,J.)