AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—Thirty persons have joined together in this single writ petition dated April 26, 2002. All of them are employees of the Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'').
On April 19, 1985 the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1985 were issued. These Instructions were issued by the competent authority in exercise of power conferred by Regulation 51 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. They were issued to provide for the method of fixation in the new scale and other matters connected with the revision or incidental thereto. Occasion arose for issuing such instructions as the scales of pay, dearness allowance and other allowances applicable to Class III and Class IV employees of the Corporation had been revised by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985. In Clause 3(2)(ii) of such 1985 instructions, it was specifically mentioned that the Trainee Assistants in the employment of the Respondent-Corporation would not be governed by the said instructions.
Simultaneously on April 19, 1985 necessary instructions for implementation of the 1985 Revision of Pay Rules were issued by the Respondent-Corporation. In Clause 23 of these Instructions, again Trainee Assistants in the employment of the Respondent-Corporation were excluded from the coverage of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1985.
A few more instructions were issued by the Respondent-Corporation on February 11, 1987. These were also issued in connection with the Revision of Pay Rules, 1985. Paragraph II of these Instructions dated February 11, 1987 contained the terms and conditions for granting the fitment benefits to the eligible persons in terms of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1985. The relevant portions of this para. 11 of the 1987 Instructions read as follows:
Fitment benefit to those who have been appointed between 1.4.83 and 11.4.85.
The Employees'' Unions have been representing that the employees who have been appointed between 1.4.83 and 11.4.85 may also be allowed the fitment benefit and the higher fixation as in the case of fitment done on 1.4.83 on the ground that the revision, though effective from 1.4.83, was notified only on 11.4.85 and all the employees serving as on 11.4.85 were existing employees and therefore, in their case also, the fitment shall be as in the case of employees existing as on 1.4.83. The matter has been considered and it has been decided to allow the fitment benefit to all Class III and Class IV employees recruited between 1.4.83 and 11.4.85 and re-fix the salary applying the same method of fixation as explained in Clause 4 of the Revision instructions.
The Petitioners have filed the present case claiming that although they were entitled to the fitment benefits in terms of the 1987 Instructions, the same were wrongly denied to them by the Respondent-Corporation.
All the Petitioners came to be appointed by the Respondent-Corporation during the period from January 12, 1985 to April 11, 1985. Admittedly, till April 11, 1985 (this is the cut off date fixed by all the Instructions) all the Petitioners were Trainee Assistants with the Respondent-Corporation. The Petitioners contend that although Trainee Assistants had been kept out of the coverage of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1985 by issuing the Instructions in the year 1985, subsequently by issuing the Instructions in the year 1987 Trainees were also brought within the scope of the 1985 Revision of Pay Rules. They base their such contention by referring to the expressions-''recruited'', ''joined'' and ''appointed'' appearing in para. II of the 1987 Instructions. They contend that these Instructions came to be issued in the wake of the agitation launched by the employees and by them the Respondent-Corporation modified its previous decisions; and this is precisely the reason why the expression-''recruited'', ''joined'' and ''appointed'' were used in these 1987 Instructions. They claim that having been recruited and appointed by the Respondent-Corporation before April 11, 1985 and which actions of the Respondent-Corporation were followed by the Petitioners'' joining the employment under the Respondent-Corporation within April 11, 1985, they are entitled to the benefits of fitment on the basis of the Instructions issued in 1987.
The Respondents are contesting the writ petition. They have filed an opposition dated July 31, 2002. It has been replied to by the Petitioners by their affidavit dated March 10, 2003.
Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, after drawing my attention to the 1985 Rules and Instructions and the 1987 Instructions, on which the Petitioners base their claim, contends that having regard to the fact that the employment notice was for recruiting assistants and the Petitioners had been recruited and appointed as assistants before the cut off date, although as trainees, must be held to be entitled to the benefits of fitment on the basis of the 1987 Instructions, which applied to every person who had been recruited and appointed by the Respondent-Corporation before April 11, 1985. Mr. Kundu, appearing for the Respondent-Corporation disputes the correctness of the contentions raised by the Petitioners. He submits that the Trainee Assistants had been specifically excluded from the purview of the 1985 Revision of Pay Rules and this is explicit from the provisions contained therein as well as the provisions contained in the 1985 Instructions.
After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, I find that in the present writ petition Petitioners cannot be given any relief.
The benefits of fitment into a scale, consequent on revision of the scale, is given to an employee, only when it is found that such an employee is in employment, against a sanctioned scale, as on the date from which the revised scale comes into force. Any other person not employed with a regular scale is simply not entitled to the benefits of fitment, as the concept of fitment is relevant only for fixing pay of an employee, working in the unrevised scale, at the appropriate stage of the revised scale; and with benefits of arrears if the revised scale comes into force retrospectively.
In the instant case apart from the admitted fact that the 1985 Instructions issued by the Respondent-Corporation specifically excluded Trainee assistants from the purview of the 1985 Rules, it is also the admitted position that all the Petitioners were not in the employment of the Respondent-Corporation as permanent employees appointed against any sanctioned scale meant for a particular cadre. There is no dispute that as on April 11, 1985 all the Petitioners were in the employment of the Respondent-Corporation only as Trainee Assistants and they were getting -their remuneration at a consolidated rate, according to the terms and conditions of their such appointment. The appointment letters specifically mentioned that they would not be getting benefit of any pay scale or the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation during their employment as Trainee Assistants.
The procedures laid down by the Respondent-Corporation in para. II of the 1987 Instructions did not in any manner change the already existing 1985 instructions. The 1987 Instructions cannot be read in isolation. All these instructions were issued by the Respondent-Corporation only for the purpose of carrying out of purposes and object of the 1985 Revision of Pay Rules. The expressions-''recruited'', ''appointed'' and ''joined'' as used in para. 11 of the 1987 instructions, were used only with reference to the employees appointed against sanctioned scale meant for particular cadre, because these expressions were used only for the purpose of giving fitment benefits to employees recruited and appointed by the Respondent-Corporation in the unrevised scales. In the absence of their working in the unrevised scale, there was absolutely no scope to give the Petitioners any fitment benefits. The concent is absolutely contrary to the elementary concept of granting fitment benefits.
Therefore, I am of the view that the denial of the claimed fitment benefits to the Petitioners by the Respondent-Corporation was not illegal or unjust. The Petitioners were not entitled to such benefits. Hence I find that the writ petition is without any merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the parties, if applied for.