Santosh Kumar Singh v. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing inter alia an Inter Office Memo dated 23.1.2014, issued by the respondent No.2/Pawan Hans Ltd., whereunder it has revised the fixed monthly emoluments of the direct contractual employees engaged by it.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Software Engineer, was engaged by the respondent No.2/PHL on a contractual basis for a period of three years, w.e.f. 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2013, at a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.30,000/-. After the period of his contractual employment was over on 31.5.2013, the same was not renewed by the respondent No.2/Pawan Hans Ltd. 2014:DHC:6933

3. On 23.1.2014, an Inter Office Memorandum was issued by the respondent No.2/PHL, wherein it was conveyed that upon receiving approval from the Board of Directors, the fixed monthly emoluments of the direct contractual employees stood revised. Clause 1 of the terms and conditions of the said Inter Office Memo, stipulated as below:- “The revision shall be applicable for those who are as on date of issue of this order in employment with Pawan Hans and would be effective from 01.04.2011 or from the date of commencement of the individual contract, whichever is later provided there has been no break of interruption of their contractual appointment.”

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of the aforesaid Inter Office Memo ought to have been extended to him as he was a contractual employee of the respondent No.2/PHL between 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2013 and the said Memo was made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2011.

5. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner had dispatched a legal notice dated 21.3.2014 to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the respondent No.2/PHL raising the very same grievance which was turned down vide letter dated 11.4.2014 wherein it was clarified that the fixed monthly emoluments of contractual employees in Pawan Hans was revised under the Inter Office Memo dated 23.1.2014 with a stipulation that the said revision would be applicable only to those contractual employees who were in employment with the respondent No.2/PHL on the date of issuance of the said Memo, and it would be effective “from 1.4.2011, or from the date of commencement of the individual contract, whichever is later”, subject to a further condition that there should not be any break/ interruption in the contractual employment. It was stated that the petitioner’s contract had already expired on 31.5.2013 and therefore, he was not entitled to claim any benefits under the aforecited Inter Office Memo.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid rejection order is illegal and the respondent No.2/PHL ought to have made the Inter Office Memo applicable retrospectively, to all contractual employees including the petitioner. He points out that the petitioner’s contract was valid from 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2013 and therefore, the terms and conditions imposed in the Inter Office Memo to the effect that the same would be effective from 1.4.2011, should be read in his favour without applying the remaining terms and conditions as imposed on the direct contractual employees.

7. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered his submissions in the light of the Inter Office Memo dated 23.1.2014. Through the said Memo, the respondent No.2/PHL has revised the fixed monthly emoluments payable to its direct contractual employees, but has curtailed the benefit to a particular set of contractual employees, whose services have remained uninterrupted. For him to claim entitlement, the petitioner was required to remain in the employment of Pawan Hans Ltd. “from 1.4.2011 or from the date of commencement of the individual contract, whichever is later”. Further, the aforesaid Memo has clarified that for claiming entitlement to the revision, there should not have been any break or interruption in the contractual appointment. In the present case, the petitioner’s contract had commenced on 1.5.2010 and had ended on 31.5.2013 and thereafter the said contract was not extended by the respondent No.2/PHL. As a result, there was a break/interruption in his contractual employment with the respondent No.2/PHL, which disentitles him to claim the benefits flowing from the aforesaid Memo.

8. It is a well settled position that an employer is well empowered to revise the salaries, pay scales etc. of the employees and the court should ordinarily not interfere in the exercise of this power unless such an exercise is found to be unreasonable or discriminatory in nature. It is the privilege of an employer to make day-day-day decisions as to how it should manage its affairs, including the extent of salaries that it may fix for different cadres, the manner of recruitment, the prescription of selection process adopted etc. and the courts ought to refrain from interfering in the said issues, unless the employee is in a position to demonstrate some gross arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the decisions taken.

9. This Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity on the part of the respondent No.2/PHL in making the Inter Office Memo applicable retrospectively but limiting it to a particular set of contractual employees, who have remained on the payrolls of the company. Further, it is not the petitioner’s case that he has been discriminated against, and other similarly placed contractual employees of the respondent No.2/PHL, whose services stand terminated, have been extended the benefit of the Inter Office Memo, while he has been deprived of the same.

10. In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is found to be devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (HIMA KOHLI) DECEMBER 10, 2014 JUDGE mk/rkb