Himmat Singh vs The Central Administrative Tribunal

Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ''the Tribunal'') on 01.11.2012 (Annexure P-16), whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of Productivity Link Incentive (PLI) for the period from 01.09.1999 to 31.07.2002 remained unsuccessful. The petitioner as a Member of Indian Police Service was sent on deputation to Indian Airlines as Director (Security) vide letter dated 28.10.1997. Apart from usual terms & conditions, condition No. 12 is that ''in all other matters not specified herein the deputationist will be governed by the rules and conditions of the service of the Department to which he belongs''. It is asserted by the petitioner that in terms of such condition, he along with many other Officers including Officers of All India Services were given PLI, but consequent to an audit objection, the payment of PLI was stopped. However, the same was resumed in respect of the employees of Indian Airlines, but the same was not resumed in respect of Officers of All India Services etc. An original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench by some of the officers including members of the All India Services. It was on 01.12.2006, such application was allowed in respect of the applicants including of the members of All India Services. A perusal of the said order (Annexure P-11) shows that the Bench has allowed the application for the reason that PLI was paid to Shri P.C. Sen, a member of the All India Services on deputation to Indian Airlines. The Bench was of the opinion that such action declining benefit of PLI to the applicants is a discriminatory action and, thus, not sustainable in law.

Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh claiming PLI, which has since been declined by the Tribunal, inter alia, for the reason that the petitioner cannot claim payment of PLI on the basis of any law or rules or the terms and conditions of deputation. The reasons for payment prior to its stoppage are not on record. The emoluments and perquisites received by the applicant in his parent cadre are irrelevant considerations. The payment of PLI is not a legally enforceable right.

The scheme of granting PLI is not on record. However, some indication in respect of such benefit is available in an order passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 773 of 2008 titled ''The Indian Airlines Plant Engineers vs. Union of India'' - decided on 14.1.2010. It is noticed that the PLI Scheme was introduced by the Indian Airlines in 1996 for various groups of officers and employees. The bipartite settlement concluded between the management of the Indian Airlines and All India Aircraft Engineers'' Association concerning payment of PLI. That settlement covers Aircraft Engineers, Senior Aircraft Engineers and Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineers. The management issued an order on 28.06.1996 extending the benefit of PLI Scheme to the technical category of employees represented by Air Corporation Employees Union. Still later, the management concluded a bipartite settlement with the Indian Aircraft Technicians'' Association, representing Senior Inspector/Senior Foreman, Inspector A/Foreman A, Inspector/Foreman, Senior Master Technician/Master Technician, Senior Technician and Technician. The appellants before the Kerala High Court were members of Indian Airlines Officers'' Association. After mutual negotiation, a scheme for payment of PLI was evolved for the members of that Association, including Plant Engineers, like the appellants. Since the members of the said Association were not workmen in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, no formal bipartite settlement was signed.

We find that the title of the Scheme i.e. ''Productivity Link Incentive'' leads to inference that it is meant for the employees (workmen) of the Indian Airlines and not for the officers, who are in managerial or supervisory category. Even if, some of the officers have been granted PLI, the same could not be claimed by other officers on the ground of discrimination. There cannot be any parity in illegality. Reference may be made to Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another, wherein it has been held to the following effect:

"8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law--indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law--but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law.........."

Thus, in the absence of conditions of grant of PLI to the officers engaged in supervisory and managerial category being on record, we find that the petitioner is not entitled to such allowance only on the strength of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.