Case: Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. &amp; Others

preferred LPA No. 294 of 2000. The Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated 14th February, 2006 dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants against rejection of their claim of higher emoluments but the appeal filed by the IRCON against the direction to regularize the services of appellant Rameshwar Dayal has been allowed and the said direction has been set aside. The Division Bench has not adverted to the other reliefs sought by the writ petitioners.9. The appellants are before us against the said order. 10. We have heard Mr. O.P. Khadaria, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Khadaria has also filed written submissions. 11. Mr. Khadaria points that the Board of Directors of IRCON in its meeting held on 3rd March, 1982 and that of the meeting held on 10th January, 1983 decided to pay remuneration to the employees in Algeria on the basis of the scale of pay they are getting in the IRCON and hence, granting lesser emoluments to the appellant is illegal. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Khadaria and the reliance placed by him on the decisions of the Board of Directors of the IRCON dated 3rd March, 1982 and 10th January, 1983 are misconceived and have no bearing so far as the claim of emoluments is concerned. Undisputedly, emoluments of these appellants were fixed after the aforesaid Resolution of the Board of Directors. Their emoluments therefore shall be governed by the terms and conditions agreed upon. It is relevant here to state that the appellants claim parity with two persons who were sent to Algeria as Chartered Accountant and Engineer (Technical Officers). Appellants were working as French Translators and, therefore, they cannot claim parity on the basis of similarity in the scale of pay when they belong to a different category. As rightly observed by the Division Bench of the High Court that once the appellants have entered into an agreement they cannot go back and claim for higher emoluments. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in this regard reads as follows: “So far as the plea for higher emoluments is concerned, the petitioner had accepted his assignment in Algeria and he cannot go back on his agreement now. It is entirely for the authority concerned to decide what pay scale should be given to a particular employee and Court cannot interfere with the pay scalevide Delhi Tapedic Unmulan Samiti v. Babita Rani & Ors. (supra). At any event, as held by the learned Single Judge, the appellant can file a suit for this purpose.” 12. As regards the claim of Rameshwar Dayal for regularisation in service, Mr. Khadaria submits that his performance being satisfactory he cannot be thrown out from service and as such the Division Bench erred in setting aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for regularising his services. The observation of the learned Single Judge in this connection reads as follows: “Now, I come to the question of the respondent’s authority to dispense with the services of the petitioner in CW.2298/95. There is considerable force in the submission of Mr. O.P. Khadaria that the petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste category, whose post has been re-designated, cannot be sent out by the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner in CW.2298/95, Rameshwar Dayal, is not capable of working on ministerial assignment having regard to his long experience in the organisation. The respondent/Corporation being a public authority, is bound to act in accordance with fairplay and justice, and cannot dispense with the services of the petitioner in CW.2298/95 by simply issuing a show cause noticed asking him to fend for himself. It may also be noticed that it is not the case of the respondent/Corporation that the performance of the petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, has not been satisfactory.” 13. However, the Division Bench while setting aside the aforesaid direction observed as follows: “As regards question of regularization we have already held in Delhi Tapedic Unmulan Samiti v.Babita Rani & Ors., LPA No.2554/2005, decided on 16th January, 2006, that the Court cannot issue directions for regularization as it is an executive function, and it depends on the relevant rules and can only be directed by the Authorities concerned and not the Court. The entire case law on the point has been considered in Delhi Tapedic Unmulan Samiti v. Babita Rani & Ors. (supra) and hence we are not repeating the same again.” 14. Mr. Sharma, however, contends that in the absence of any policy or scheme framed by the employer no claim of regularisation can be made. He points out that the IRCON needed the services of the French Translators when it was executing projects in French speaking countries and now that no such project is with it, services of the appellant cannot be regularised. 15. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Khadaria. This appellant was appointed temporarily and excepting the report submitted to the Registrar of Companies, there is nothing on record to show that he was ever made permanent. The service of this appellant as French Translator has been dispensed with as no project in French speaking country is with the IRCON. In the face of it, the action of the IRCON in dispensing with the services of this appellant cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.16. As the High Court has not gone into the claim of the appellants for payment of compensation for denying air passage and claim of promotion of appellant Rameshwar Dayal, we are not inclined to look into these grievances in present appeals.17. To put the record straight, Mr. Khadaria has referred to a large number of authorities which have no relevance at all to the issues involved in these appeals and accordingly we do not consider it expedient to incorporate the same.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Khadaria and the reliance placed by him on the decisions of the Board of Directors of the IRCON dated 3rd March, 1982 and 10th January, 1983 are misconceived and have no bearing so far as the claim of emoluments is concerned. Undisputedly, emoluments of these appellants were fixed after the aforesaid Resolution of the Board of Directors. Their emoluments therefore shall be governed by the terms and conditions agreed upon. It is relevant here to state that the appellants claim parity with two persons who were sent to Algeria as Chartered Accountant and Engineer (Technical Officers). Appellants were working as French Translators and, therefore, they cannot claim parity on the basis of similarity in the scale of pay when they belong to a different category. As rightly observed by the Division Bench of the High Court that once the appellants have entered into an agreement they cannot go back and claim for higher emoluments.Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Khadaria. This appellant was appointed temporarily and excepting the report submitted to the Registrar of Companies, there is nothing on record to show that he was ever made permanent. The service of this appellant as French Translator has been dispensed with as no project in French speaking country is with the IRCON. In the face of it, the action of the IRCON in dispensing with the services of this appellant cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.16. As the High Court has not gone into the claim of the appellants for payment of compensation for denying air passage and claim of promotion of appellant Rameshwar Dayal, we are not inclined to look into these grievances in present appeals.17. To put the record straight, Mr. Khadaria has referred to a large number of authorities which have no relevance at all to the issues involved in these appeals and accordingly we do not consider it expedient to incorporate the same.