AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] This petition is filed by Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association. The prayer in the petition is for a direction to the respondents i.e. the State Government and the Tripura Jute Mills Limited to pay interest on delayed provident fund contributions at the prevalent rates from the period starting from 01.01.1996 till actual payment.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The petitioner is an association of the officers of Tripura Jute Mills. Tripura Jute Mills is a State owned corporation. In the year 1996 all the State corporations and PSU employees were granted revised pay scales. The officers and employees of Tripura Jute Mills were deprived this benefit. They, therefore, had filed a petition before the Gauhati High Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which the petitioner had filed writ appeal No.74/2003 which was allowed by the Division Bench by a judgment dated 08.04.2011. Operative portion of this judgment reads as under :
"For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that writ appeal and for that matter the writ petition deserves to be allowed and consequently we set aside and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule 139/1997. As a consequence direction is issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners and for that matter the officers and employees of the TJM at par with their counterparts in other 32 organisations, entitling them to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and other allowances such as HRA, CA, CAS and DA etc."
[3] This judgment was challenged by the authorities before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by an order dated 25th October, 2016 which reads as under:
"Application(s) for intervention and impleadment are dismissed. Leave granted.
Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties the appeal is disposed of in the following terms :
The order of the Division Bench granting the benefit of the Fourth Pay Commission to the respondent-Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association w.e.f. 01.01.1996 is maintained.
Interest at the rate of 6% on the amount due to each of the officers/employees with effect from the date of the Division Bench Order i.e. 08.04.2011 be paid.
The amount due with interest, as aforesaid, be paid within a period of four months to the concerned officers-employees and/or to their legal heirs/representatives, as the case may be.
The above relief will be confined to the members of the Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association as it is the said Association who had agitated the matter before the High Court."
[4] By this order of the Supreme Court thus the Division Bench judgment granting benefit of Fourth Pay Commission recommendations to the officers of the Tripura Jute Mills was confirmed. They would thus get pay in revised scales with effect from 01.01.1996. Such amount would be paid to them with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench i.e. 08.04.2011 till actual payment. Such amount with interest would be paid within four months. These benefits were however confined to the members of the association only.
[5] The grievance which the petitioner has now raised in this petition is that by virtue of the said decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the members of the petitioner-association received higher salaries from back dates. This required larger deduction of provident fund with matching increased contribution by the employer. This has also been done. However, the grievance is that since this exercise was undertaken after the judgment of the Supreme Court which was rendered in October, 2016, they must be paid interest from the past period which interest they would have earned from the provident fund account had such contributions to their provident fund accounts been made timely.
[6] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.K. Biswas vehemently contended that the members of the petitioner-association were required to be paid higher salaries from 01.01.1996 onwards. The Government and the employer Tripura Jute Mills illegally denied them this benefit. They succeeded before the Courts. It was only thereupon sometime in the year 2017 that the arrears of salary were paid. Had the employer paid them higher salary from the beginning the same would have invited greater provident fund deductions and matching contributions from the employer which in turn would have earned interest as per the interest prescribed by the provident fund organization. My attention was drawn to Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme framed by the Provident Fund Commissioner under the said Act.
[7] On the other hand, learned counsel Shri C.S. Sinha and Additional Government Advocate Shri Dipankar Sharma opposed the petition contending that the petitioner's rights have been crystallized under the judgment of the High Court as modified by the Supreme Court. All the benefits flowing from the judgment of the Supreme Court have been paid over. No further relief can be granted.
[8] In my opinion the entire issue of assigning proper pay scale and payment of salary at revised scales was at large before the High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court. One may recall that the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition for implementation of the recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission to the officers of Tripura Jute Mills, the Division Bench reversed such judgment and directed that the officers shall receive pay in the revised pay scales as per Fourth Pay Commission recommendations with effect from 01.01.1996. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court maintained the principal directions for payment of salary in the revised scales from due dates and further provided that
(i) the arrear shall be paid with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench till actual payment and
(ii) that such directions shall apply only to the members of the petitioner-association.
[9] All rights and liabilities between the members of the petitioner-association and the employer with respect to grant of revised pay scale were before the High Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has taken a holistic view and allowed arrears as per the revised scales which would carry interest for a limited period. The question of interest on the provident fund component of the arrears of salary cannot be segregated and raised in an independent petition. It may be as stated by the counsel for the petitioner that this issue was never separately discussed or argued in the previous round of litigation. However, this would not permit the petitioner to maintain an independent petition for this element of pay which is nothing but the part of the previous dispute between the employer and employees. The Supreme Court have been recognized right to receive the arrears with limited interest, any directions as prayed for by the petitioner would amount to enlarging the directions of the Supreme Court which in any case in an independent petition which I do not find is maintainable, would not be done.
[10] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.