Case: N.P. Verma Vs. Union of India

higher grades, namely, Grades R11 and R12 and the Grade of General Manager. This is not for this Court to say whether the compression should have been made in the lower grades or in the higher grades. By such compression, Grades R6 A and R7 A have been upgraded and the persons placed in those Grades have been benefited by such upgradation. There is much subst ance in the conten- tion made on behalf of HPCL that if compression had been made in the upper grades, there would be much complications and, moreover, such compression in the upper grades was not convenient to be made in view of functional differen ces. The Grade of General Manager cannot be clubbed together with a lower grade. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the compression should have been made in the higher grades of CORIL. 18. The most important question that requires consideration is whether in framing the rationalisation scheme HPCL has really made the equation of posts of CORIL with those of ESSO/LIL. It is the 372 positive case of the petitioners that no such equation has been made and the fitment of the officers of CORIL and those of ESSO/LIL in the IOC/HPCL scales of pay have been made without the equation of posts, which is a sine qua non for integration of officers coming from different sources. The petitioners have mainly relied upon the recommendation of the Tandon Committee that General Sales Representative of ESSO has been equated with the post of Retail Development Supervisor of CORIL. In the scheme prepared by HPCL, thepost of General Sales Representative of ESSO and that of Depot Superintendent have been placed in the Salary Group B of HPCL, while the post of Retail Development Supervisor and Depot Superintendent/Relief Depot Superintendent of CORIL have been placed in the Salary Grou p A of HPCL. 19. As against this, the contention of HPCL is that the two Committees that were appointed by the Chairman of HPCL considered the different methods of fitment and equivalence of different pay-scales of ESSO, LIL and CORIL with the pay-scales of IOC. Except the bare allegation, no material has been produced before us on behalf of HPCL to show that the said Committees had, as a matter of fact, considered the question of equation of posts on the basis of the principle as laid do wn by the Central Government while referring the matter to the Tandon Committee, namely, functional similari- ty and co-equal responsibility. In the affidavits filed on behalf of HPCL, no particulars have been given with regard to the functional equiv alence or otherwise of the different grades of these officers of CORIL, ESSO and LIL. It is also not stated what happened to the consideration by the Govern- ment of the Tandon Committees report. There can be no doubt that the Government is not bound t o accept the recommenda- tion of the Tandon Committee but, at the same time, the equation of posts has to be made on the principle of func- tional equivalence and co-equal responsibility. As no mate- rials have been produced in that regard on beh alf of HPCL, it is difficult for us to hold that the different grades of posts have been compared before placing the officers of these companies in the IOC/HPCL scales of pay. While it is not within the domain of the Court to make the equation o f posts for the purpose of integration, it is surely the concern of the Court to see that before the integration is made and consequent fitment of officers in different grades/scales of pay is effected, there must be an equation of differ ent posts in accordance with the principle stated above. As there is no evidence or material in support of such equation of posts, it is difficult to accept the ra- tionalisation scheme with regard to the placing of theofficers of CORIL in d ifferent IOC/HPCL grades of pay. 20. The petitioners approached the Grievance Committee, but the Grievance Committee did not consider the objections of the petitioners to the said scheme. In our opinion, there is much substance in the contention made on behalf of HPCL that it was not the business of the Grievance Committee to con- sider the propriety or otherwise of the rationalisation scheme, but if any officer has not been placed in the proper grade, the Grievance Committee may place such of ficer in the proper grade in accordance with the rationalisation scheme. 21. Be that as it may, in the view which we take, namely, that there has been no equation of posts, the rationalisa- tion scheme cannot be accepted in full. The prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition is for a declaration that the said scheme is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing HPCL to remove the discrim- ination aga inst the petitioners in regard to the impugned rationalisation scheme. 22. The question is whether we should set aside the scheme after the lapse of about eight years. During these eight years, by virtue of implementation of the scheme, many changes have taken place with regard to the positions and ranks of the officers of HPCL including the petitioners and to set aside the whole scheme at this stage would surely affect the service structure of HPCL. We are also not obliv- ious of the order of this Court dated July 20, 1984 record- ing the statement made in the affidavit of HPCL that if this Court would ultimately decide the matter in favour of the petitioners, HPCL would accord to them all the benefits which they would be en titled to. That is an undertaking given by HPCL, but we should also look to the interest of several officers of HPCL who would be affected, if the scheme is set aside. 23.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]Admittedly, no application was made to this Court by the officers of CORIL praying for stay of the rationalisation scheme within a period of three weeks. Relying on the said order of this Court and also on the fact that no application for stay was made to this Court within the period allowed, it is submitted on behalf of HPCL that the petitioners accepted the rationalisation scheme which is also evidenced by their written acceptance. If they had any objection to the scheme, they would have surely made a representation to this Court in the said Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 1979 which was thenthe writ petition, the petitioners have emphatically denied the allegation of HPCL that discussions were made with individuals and groups of Management Staff of CORIL with regard to the rationalisation scheme. As to the accept- ance of the rationalisation scheme, the case of the peti- tioners is that on July 12, 1980 a news item appeared in the Bombay edition of the Times of India to the effect that under the scheme of rationalisation, the services of nearly 950 officers of HPCL would be terminated, and that suchofficers would simultaneously be re appointed on the basis of public sector salary. In view of the said news, the peti- tioners filed an application in this Court in the said Civil Appeals praying for stay or suspension of the operation of the said offer letter dated July 7, 1980 and fo r restraining HPCL from terminating the services of the Management Staff of CORIL pending the disposal of the Civil Appeals. HPCL filed an affidavit in opposition to the said application of the petitioners to the effect that no decision had bee n taken by HPCL to terminate the services of the officers of CORIL. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the said applica- tion recording that in view of the said affidavit of HPCL, no order was needed to be passed. Further, the case of the petitioner s is that in spite of the said order of this Court, the petitioners still apprehended that HPCL would terminate the services of the petitioners in the event of their refusal to accept the said scheme and, as such, the petitioners under dur ess were forced to signify their con- sent to the saidhave considered the explanation of the petitioner justifying the acceptance of the said offer letter dated July 7, 1988 and the rationalisation scheme sent therewith and also the contention of HPCL in that regard. In our opinion, the apprehension of the petitioners that in the event of their refusal to accept the scheme, their services will be terminated cannot be rejected on the face of it. It may be that there was no reasonable basis for such apprehen- sion, but the plea that because of such apprehension the petitioners had no other alternative than to accept the scheme, cannot be disbelieved. At the same time, we do not also put any blame on HPCL fo r implementing the said scheme which was accepted by the petitioners and other officers of CORIL. Instead of disposing of these writ petitions on this technical grounds, we may proceed to consider the respective contentions of the parties onis the 372 positive case of the petitioners that no such equation has been made and the fitment of the officers of CORIL and those of ESSO/LIL in the IOC/HPCL scales of pay have been made without the equation of posts, which is a sine qua non for integration of officers coming from different sources. The petitioners have mainly relied upon the recommendation of the Tandon Committee that General Sales Representative of ESSO has been equated with the post of Retail Development Supervisor of CORIL. In the scheme prepared by HPCL, thepost of General Sales Representative of ESSO and that of Depot Superintendent have been placed in the Salary Group B of HPCL, while the post of Retail Development Supervisor and Depot Superintendent/Relief Depot Superintendent of CORIL have been placed in the Salary Grou p A ofthat as it may, in the view which we take, namely, that there has been no equation of posts, the rationalisa- tion scheme cannot be accepted in full. The prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition is for a declaration that the said scheme is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing HPCL to remove the discrim- ination aga inst the petitioners in regard to the impugned rationalisationthese eight years, by virtue of implementation of the scheme, many changes have taken place with regard to the positions and ranks of the officers of HPCL including the petitioners and to set aside the whole scheme at this stage would surely affect the service structure of HPCL. We are also not obliv- ious of the order of this Court dated July 20, 1984 record- ing the statement made in the affidavit of HPCL that if this Court would ultimately decide the matter in favour of the petitioners, HPCL would accord to them all the benefits which they would be en titled to. That is an undertaking given by HPCL, but we should also look to the interest of several officers of HPCL who would be affected, if the scheme is set aside.