IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35196 of 1998 and WRIT PETITION No.8614 of 1999 Between: 1. Khaja Riyazuddin Maomood S/o. Mohinuddin Shariff R/o. Godavarikhani, OCP.I. RG.IV. 2. B. Ravinder S/o. Samuel Godavarikhani, R.G.II 8 Incline. 3. G. Happbabu S/o. Brahmaji Rao Godavarikhani, S.C.Co.Ltd, R.G.II 8 A incline. 4. J. Veerbhadradu S/o. Purushothma Sharma Godavarikhani, S.C.Co.Ltd, OCP.III, RG.III. 5. P.V. Suresh S/o. P.V.K. Subba Rao Godavarikhani, S.C.Co.Ltd, OCP.III, RG.III. 6. Ch. Ravinder S/o. Ramanna Godavarikhani, S.C.Co.Ltd, OCP.III, RG.III. 7. E. Krishna Reddy S/o. E. Ramachandra Reddy Godavarikhani, S.C.Co.Ltd, OCP.III, RG.III. 8. G. Venkataiah S/o. Rajagattaiah Godavarikhani, S.C.Co.Ltd, 8 Incline, R.G.II. 9. Joginder Singh S/o. Ameer Singh Godavarikhani, 10-A Incline, R.G.II. 10. V. Narasimha Swamy S/o. Laxmaiah Godavarikhani, OCP-I, R.G.IV. 11. M. Srinivas Murthy S/o. G.S.Mohan Rao Godavarikhani, OCP-I, R.G.IV. 12. M.V.N.A Chandrasekhar S/o. Umapathi Rao Godavarikhani, OCP-I, R.G.IV. 13. B. Padma Rao S/o. Premanandam F & A RG. III. Godavarikhani. 14. K.V. Ratnaiah S/o. Pitchaiah Godavarikhani RG-I. 15. P. Rajamallu S/o. Narsaiah Godavarikhani, 6-A Incline, Rg.I. 16. K. Venkateswarlu S/o. Satyanarayana Godavarikhani, 6 Incline, Rg.I. 17. Ch. Rajender S/o. Rajagopal Godavarikhani, 5-A Inc. RG.I 18. R.Purushotham S/o. Iyalaiah Godavarikhani, 5-A Inc. RG-I. 19. Ch. Prabhakar S/o. Sambaiah Godavarikhani, 6 Inc. RG-I. 20. Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Anjaneyulu A.H. /Rg. Area. 21. M. Krishna Swamy S/o. M.Ch. Narasaiah Godavarikhani, 5 inc. Rg.I. 22. A. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Madhava Reddy Godavarikhani, 2 inc. Rg.I. ... PETITIONERS AND Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its Director (PA&W) Kothagudem, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: - i) Declaring the impugned circular No. C.26/631 dated 7-4-1998 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same: ii) Consequently direct the Respondent to restore the reduced increment to the petitioners and pay back all the amounts already recovered in pursuance of impugned circular No. C.26/631 dated 7-04-1998. Counsel for Petitioners: MR. K. VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 8614 of 1999 Between: 1. R. Venkateshwer Rao S/o Narsaiah GDK 10 A Incline, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2. M. Govinda Rao S/o Narayana GDK 10 Incline, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 3. Amiya Kumar Kundu S/o S.C. Kundu OCP-II, GDK, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 4. N. Venkateshwer Rao S/o N. Srirama Murthy OCP-II, RG IV, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 5. D. Siva Sankara Rao S/o D. Kotaiah GDK A Incline, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 6. I.V.S.B. Lakshmana Murthy S/o I. Kameshwara Rao RG II WS, GMRG II, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep. by Director ( PA & W), Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 General Manager RG-II Area, S.C.Co.Ltd., Godavarikhani, Khammam District. 3 General Manager RG-II Area, S.C.Co.Ltd., Godavarikhani, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, or Order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: - i) Declaring the impugned circular No.C26/631 dated 7-4-1998 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same: ii) Consequently direct the Respondents to restore the reduced increment to the petitioners and pay back all the amounts already recovered in pursuance of impougned circular No.C26/631 dated 7-4-1998. Counsel for Petitioners: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following: Common Order: Since these writ petitions are filed questioning the circular dated 07-04-1998, issued by the respondent-Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd, in Rc.No.C.26/631, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners herein are working as Senior Under Managers, Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers in the respondent-company. The pay scales of executives working in the respondent-company were revised in the year 1996 and were given effect to from 01-01-1992. Prior to implementation of pay revision recommendations, the increments were being released on 1st January and 1st July of the calendar year. But, however, in view of the said recommendations, a uniform date, i.e. 1st April of the calendar year, was fixed for release of increments. In these cases, some of the executives whose services were regularized between 1st January and 31st March, 1992 were immediately released one increment. However, it appears, as per the recommendations for implementation of revised pay scales, they were also granted one more increment on 1st April, 1992. Subsequent thereto, some senior executives made a representation to the respondent-company pointing out anomaly in fixation of the pay scales. The respondent-company, examining the said anomaly, decided to allow only one increment to those executives whose services were regularized in between 1s t January and 31st March, 1992 on the ground that they were already allowed one increment. Accordingly, the impugned circular was issued to recover the amount already paid on account of one extra increment from the monthly salary of such employees, including the petitioners, at the rate of Rs.500/- per month commencing from the month of April, 1998. 3. The case of the petitioners is that such re-fixation of pay and recovery are done behind their back and without giving them any opportunity. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-company explaining the reasons for re- fixation of pay scales and recovery ordered in the impugned circular. It is stated that the pay scales of the executives of the company were revised with effect from 01-01- 1992 and such revision of pay scales was implemented in October, 1996 vide Circular No.C12/1958 dated 26-10-1996 and as per the rules of pay revision, the annual date of increment was shifted to 1st April instead of between 1st January and 1st July. It is stated that accordingly the executives whose annual increments were due between 1st January and 1st July were allowed annual increment on 1st April, 1992 as per the revised pay scales and huge amount of arrears were paid to such employees including the petitioners, in the month of June, 1997. It is further stated that some senior executives made representations alleging that their basic pay was fixed on lower stage compared to that of their juniors in the revised pay scales and they sought rectification of the said anomaly. It is stated that it was noticed that 131 executives whose services were regularized during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1992 were allowed an increment on 1st April in addition to an increment on regularization, thereby getting undue benefit of one extra increment. It is the case of the respondent-company that the said employees, including the petitioners, are not entitled for the extra increment and to rectify the said anomaly, the impugned circular is issued. 5. While admitting the writ petitions, this court granted stay of recovery pursuant to the impugned circular and the said order has been continuing all along. 6. Though the respondent-company sought to justify its action in ordering recovery of the additional increment already granted, stating that the said additional increment was granted under a misapprehension, however, it is not disputed that petitioners were not given any opportunity and notice before the impugned circular was issued. 7. While it is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to the increments, which they were allowed pursuant to the recommendations of the pay revision commission, it is the case of the respondents that they are not entitled for such additional increment. However, it is not in dispute that petitioners were not put on notice before effecting recovery of the increments already released. Therefore, without going into the validity of the impugned circular, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions permitting the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, to the respondent-company, treating the circular dated 07-04-1998 as a show cause notice. The objections, if any, shall be filed within a period of six weeks from today and on receipt of objections, the respondent-company shall consider the same, pass appropriate orders and proceed further in accordance with law. Till such time, status quo as on today, with reference to the instructions issued in the impugned circular, shall be maintained. 8. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 14, 2008 MRR