Case: Chandrashekar A.K Vs. State Of Kerala

3. Appellant herein was employed as Director (Finance) in the respondent No. 2 company which is an undertaking of respondent No. 1. He was a full time employee. He resigned from services on 23.05.1995.4. The Government of India subsequently issued an office memorandum (OM) dated 19.07.1995 whereby and whereunder the scales of pay for the top posts, i.e., ‘executives holding board level posts were revised with effect from 1.01.1992. We are concerned herein with Schedule ‘C posts in respect whereof existing scale of pay of Rs.7500-200-8500 was revised to Rs. 10000-400-12000. Para 8 of the said OM dated 19.07.1995, which is material for our purpose, reads asThe administrative Ministries are requested to fix the pay of the incumbents of the Board level posts who were in employment in their enterprises as on 1.1.92 in the manner indicated above and forward their files to the DPE for vetting as required under the existing instructions contained in BPEs DO letter No. 1/1/89-BPE (S&A) Cell dated 14.2.89 and DOPTs OM No. 27(14)/C0/89 (ACC) dated 6.12.89, and as per procedure indicated in Annexure -IV.On or about 1.01.1996, appellant made a representation requesting payment of arrears of pay revision inter alia on the ground that he, having been in service on 1.01.1992, was entitled to the benefit of the said OM dated 19.07.1995. The said prayer was rejected by respondent by an order dated 31.01.1996,has reference to your letter dated 1.1.96 requesting for making the pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.92 applicable to you while you were in the service of the Corporation. Please note that the Office Memorandum dated 19.7.95 issued by the Secretary to Government of India directing the revision of scales of pay of Scheduled posts w.e.f. 1.1.92 specifically contains a clause that all the Administrative Ministries/ Departments are required to issue presidential directives to the concerned Public Sector Enterprises under its administrative control to give effect to the said revision. Please note that the Industries Department of the BPE of Kerala State Government has not issued any specific directive to the Public Sector Undertakings in Kerala for making the above revision effective. Hence, we are unable to consider your request.Appellant made another representation before respondent No. 1 on 14.02.1996 which has been turned down by the Government of Kerala by a letter dated 30.07.1996,am to invite your attention to the letter cited and to inform that the State Government have not yet adopted the revised Central BPE schedules in respect of SLPES. As such, Government regrets their inability to concede to your request.Appellant filed a writ petition upon serving a legal notice on the respondents. By reason of a judgment and order dated 23.03.2005, a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissed the said writ petition stating that as appellant was not in service when the said OM dated 19.07.1995 was issued, he was not entitled to any relief. An Intra-court appeal preferred there against has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court by reason of the impugned judgment,There was no response, and the original petition had come to be filed. The matter had been looked into by the learned Judge and he found no reasons to encourage the application as according to him, it suffers from laches and it is not as if settled rights automatically are there in favour of the appellant. We find no error in the reasoning so as to interfere with the findings as above."

Reasoning:
In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the said Office Memorandum was brought into force. It may be true that the contention of the State that the notification has been given effect to on and from 1.04.1997 was not the premise on which the High Court dismissed the writ petition, but, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the notification revising the scale of pay must be brought into force. Unless the notification is given effect to, the question of deriving any legal benefit in terms thereof by a former employee of respondent No. 2 did not and could nothave noticed hereinbefore that both the Central Government as also the State of Kerala categorically stated that the notification had not come into force on the dates on which the representations of the appellant dated 1.01.1996 and 14.02.1996 were rejected by them in terms of their letters dated 31.01.1996 and 30.07.1996, respectively. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the benefit of recommendation of his pay revision committed stood implemented on the day on which appellant resigned.Vishwanathan is correct in his submission that the Division Bench committed a serious illegality insofar as it held that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It did not do so. as it was not so, but having considered the merit of the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.