M.T. Verghese vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S. Muralidhar, J.—The prayer in this petition is for quashing the decisions dated 1st October 1987 and 2nd June 1989 of the Mazagon Dock Ltd. (''MDL''), Respondent No. 2, denying the Petitioner pay and allowances granted to other draughtsmen working under Respondent No. 2 and denying due confirmation to the Petitioner with effect from the date when he completed six months'' service under Respondent No. 2.

The Petitioner was appointed as draughtsman in the Directorate of Naval Design, Naval Headquarters in MDL at New Delhi on 20th May 1981 on a temporary/casual basis for a period of six months. He was given a consolidated salary of Rs. 800 per month. The Petitioner joined the services of MDL on 3rd June 1981. On 1st July 1982 the Petitioner made a representation to the MDL headquarters at Mumbai that his services should be regularized as he had completed more than one year of service. He thereafter made three similar representations. The MDL, on 27th July 1984, informed the Petitioner that he had been taken on probation for a period of six months. Inter alia, the Petitioner was informed by the said letter that he would be given a starting monthly pay of Rs. 441 in the scale of Rs. 405 - 595 and a fixed dearness allowance of Rs. 300 per month linked to the average All-India Consumer Price Index at 433 (1960 = 100). In addition, he was to be paid CCA and HRA that would be applicable at New Delhi, i.e., 6.5% and 15% respectively of basic pay.

The Petitioner on 25th August 1987 renewed his request for confirmation and for fixing the salary and allowances on par with other employees of MDL. On 1st October 1987, the MDL at Mumbai informed the Chief of Naval Staff, New Delhi that the application received from the Petitioner and three other employees had been considered and "it has been decided that we will not be able to offer the same rates of pay and allowances as per other corresponding staff of MDL. If the above staff are unwilling to continue at the current rates of pay and allowance, they may be allowed to resign from the present job and in such event, the staff will be informed that they should give notice of three months as per the terms and conditions of recruitment." It appears that on 28th October 1987, the Naval Headquarters at New Delhi wrote to the Chairman and Managing Director of MDL at Bombay asking it to reconsider its decision and to narrow down the difference in payment between those working at New Delhi and other offices at Mumbai and elsewhere. On 15th December 1988, the MDL in Mumbai informed the Petitioner at Delhi that his pay scale had been revised with effect from 1st October 1988. The DA was to be linked to the CPI for industrial workers at index 492. On 29th April 1989 the Petitioner was confirmed as draughtsman with effect from 1st October 1984. It was stated therein "you are required to work at any premises and precincts thereof of the company. Other conditions of service will be the same as applicable to your cadre under the rules of the company." On 16th January 1989 the Petitioner sent another detailed representation seeking confirmation from an earlier date and parity of pay and allowances with his counterparts working in Mumbai and other places. He repeated these representations on 9th May and 5th June 1989. On 2nd June 1989 the MDL at Bombay informed the Petitioner at New Delhi that he was engaged in a purely temporary capacity in June 1981 and his request for confirmation from 1st December 1981 could not be acceded to. After the Petitioner''s two representations dated 19th June and 21st July 1989 did not elicit any response, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned hereinabove.

The case of the Respondents is that the Petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions of service as mentioned in the letter of formal appointment dated 27th July 1984. It is further submitted that the conditions of service of MDL''s employees at Delhi were totally different from those at Bombay and that employees of Bombay were expected to be more skilled. In a further affidavit, it was stated by MDL that the Petitioner did not possess the skills required of a draughtsman at Bombay and therefore the nature of his work was different. MDL has placed on record a comparative statement of the salaries paid to draughtsmen at Mangalore, Bombay and Delhi. While the pay scale is the same for all the employees, the difference occurs due to the DA being different for those at Bombay where they are paid on the Textile DA pattern which is not payable to those outside Mumbai. The Petitioner has in his further reply to the above affidavits contended that he does possess the prescribed qualifications for a draughtsman at Mumbai. He claims that the work at Delhi is more onerous than that of his counterparts in Mumbai.

The above submissions have been considered. It does appear that the making of repeated representations on the issue of confirmation cannot explain the laches in the Petitioner approaching this Court for relief. It was made clear to the Petitioner by the MDL that his confirmation would not be from a date earlier than 1st October 1984. The appointment in 1981 was indeed on a temporary/casual basis. In the absence of the Petitioner being able to show any rule or Regulation that guarantees confirmation from a date during which he was working on a casual/temporary basis, it is not possible to issue a mandamus to the MDL to grant the Petitioner such relief.

As regards parity of pay with the counterparts in Mumbai and other places, the correspondence shows that at the time of his appointment in New Delhi the Petitioner was informed that his DA would on the industrial DA pattern and the CCA and HRA would be that applicable in New Delhi. The Respondents have in their further affidavits explained the basis for the difference in pay for the same posts in the three cities, i.e., Mumbai, Delhi and Mangalore. The draughtsmen at Mumbai are given DA on the Textile DA pattern. This therefore cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. Further, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, this Court cannot possibly undertake the exercise of comparing the nature of duties in regard to posts at different cities of MDL for the purpose of examining what the pay scales ought to be. In the circumstances this Court is unable to grant this relief either.

For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances with No. order as to costs.