Union of India and Anr vs Reena Ramachandran and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

CM No. 20235/2012 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

LPA 794/2012, CM No. 20232/2012 (for stay), CM No. 20233/2012 (for condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the appeal) & CM No. 20234/2012 (for condonation of delay of 222 days in re-filing the appeal)

This intra court appeal, along with applications for condonation of 136 days delay in filing and 222 days in re-filing, impugns the judgment dated 28th September, 2011 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No. 738/2004 preferred by the respondent No. 1. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 who retired as the Chairman and the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (HOCL) for re-fixation/revision of her pay during the period of her service with HOCL by protecting her last drawn pay with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) impleaded as respondent No. 3 in this appeal. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment has held the respondent No. 1 entitled to protection of her last drawn pay in ONGC and directed the respondents in the writ petition, i.e. the appellant herein Union of India (UOI) as well as HOCL and ONGC to calculate the arrears of differential pay and consequential arrears of differential gratuity, leave encashment, contribution to provident fund (PF) dues and to pay the same to the respondent No. 1 with simple interest at 9% per annum. Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, the learned ASG has fairly stated that the amount of Rs. 1,96,901/- so due to the respondent No. 1 has been paid to the respondent No. 1; however, this appeal has been preferred since the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct and the judgment of the learned Single Judge may cause prejudice to the other Public Sector Undertakings and may have serious implications.

We find that even in the applications for condonation of delay, it is stated that the advice rendered to the appellant at one stage was that, considering the financial implications, the amount be released to the respondent No. 1 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant UOI.

In the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that issuing notice of this appeal to the respondents for adjudicating the issue raised, may cause financial and other prejudice to the respondent No. 1 who has already litigated for over seven years. As far as the apprehension of the appellant UOI is concerned, the same can be allayed, without adjudicating on the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge, by observing that upon a similar issue arising in any other matter, the appellant UOI and the Public Sector Undertakings concerned, shall be entitled to argue the matter afresh and the judgment will not constitute a binding precedent.

For the aforesaid reason, since the appellant UOI has stated that it will remain bound by the judgment insofar as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, we without notice to the respondent No. 1, condone the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal and dispose of this appeal with a direction that the impugned judgment will not be treated as a precedent in any other dispute of a similar nature. No costs.