Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. & Ors vs P. Ramachandra Rao & Anr

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Questioning correctness of the action of the Corporation and its functionaries the respondents herein filed writ a petition. Prayer was to direct the appellants herein to fix their pension and other terminal benefits at par with other UDCs. retired on or after 1.7.1990 and to pay all the arrears of pensions and other terminal benefits. Learned Single judge having regard to the intended purpose of the scheme held that the respondents have been discriminated while calculating the pension on the ground that they had retired prior to the introduction of the scheme. Stand of the employer in essence was that the Board's proceedings Ms No 481 dated 4.2.1991 had application only to those who were on its rolls as on 1.7.1990. In view of the fact that the respondents retired on 30.4.1990 the said scheme has no application to them. In any event the scheme was introduced keeping in view the settlement dated 29.1.1991 entered into between the Wage Negotiation Committee and the Board before the Joint Commissioner of Labour and State Conciliation Officer in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') and the same cannot be the subject matter of interpretation in the writ petition. In the Appeal its stand before learned Single Judge was reiterated before the Division Bench. Stand of the writ petitioners was that the learned Single Judge was justified in its conclusion.

A brief reference to the factual position would be necessary. Relevant portion of the Board's proceedings dated 4.2.1991 are as follows:

The notification issued on 4.2.1991 is in exercise of powers conferred under Section 79(C) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which notified Boards' regulations. It is stated at Para 1(ii) that the regulations shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.7.1990. In Clause 2(iv) it is stated that 'Pensioner" means an employee who retired on or after 1.7.1990 but before the date of issue of the order. Grievance of the writ petitioners basically was that the persons who retired from service after 1.7.1990 were drawing more pension than the writ petitioners. Learned Single judge referred to the Memorandum of Settlement but did not attach much importance to it. The Memorandum of Settlement clearly shows that the period of settlement was from 1.7.1990 to 30.6.1994. Claim of the writ petitioners was that the employer and its functionaries were liable to fix the pension and other terminal benefits of the writ petitioners at par with the other UDCs retired on or after 1.7.1990. As noted above, the grievance was that the said category of persons was drawing more pensions. It was pointed out that the revision of pay scale in BPMs. No. 878 dated 5.10.1981 effective from 1.4.1981 was only for a period of 4 years and the same was required to be revised after expiry of the period i.e. with effect from 1.4.1985. The Board instead of revising the pay scales with effect from 1.4.1985 revised the same with effect from 1.7.1986. It was, therefore, submitted that the classification as done was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').

627) that :

Above being the position the judgment of the learned Single judge and that of the Division bench affirming the same cannot be maintained and are, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances no order as to costs.