Mohd. Inam v. The Senior Divisional Manager & Ors.

1. The appellant before us seeks entitlement to a financial benefit of basic pay of Rs.1410 placing reliance on the Circular dated 16th March,

1990. The relevant portion of this Circular as relied upon by the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder: "The fixation of pay on absorption in the Class III post will be in the following manner:

(i) The basic pay will be initially fixed at the lowest stage in the scale of pay of Assistant or Record Clerk as the case may be and thereafter one increment for every two years completed service as a Development Officer may be granted (a part or a fraction of 2014:DHC:2789-DB such period shall not be counted for the purposes). However, the basic pay to be fixed shall be not more than the basic pay he was drawing as a Development Officer at the time of termination. Further, if the basic pay he was drawing as a Development Officer at the time of termination was not in the scale of pay of the Class III post to which he is being reappointed, the basic pay in Class III post shall be fixed at a stage which is just below the basic pay he was drawing as a Development Officer at the time of his termination."

2. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner has failed to make out a case as to how he is entitled to benefit under above circular and that the writ petition was hopelessly bereft of any details in the matter. It is stated that the petitioner worked upto November, 1993 on the post of Development Officer, a Class II post when he was removed from service by an order dated 8th November, 1983 under ‘Work Norms Basis’. The petitioner was taken back into service in pursuance of the departmental instructions as Class III employee in the post of Record Clerk in the Clerical Staff and was posted in Life Insurance Corporation Branch-1, Ghaziaad vide appointment order dated 27th January, 1993.

3. As per writ petitioner, on his reappointment in the post of record clerk his basic salary was fixed in the grade of Rs.930/-. He filed a representation that he, according to the circular dated 16th March, 1990, should be reappointed as Assistant in the grade of Rs.1000/- which was not favourably considered resulting in filing of a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The basic pay of the petitioner at the time of termination as Development Officer was Rs.350/- per month. We have discerned the information in this regard from the counter affidavit of the respondent wherein the respondents have disclosed that the basic pay of the petitioner at the time of termination as Development Officer was Rs.350/- per month and that his basic pay was fixed at Rs.930/- per month i.e. the minimum of the scale of the record clerk.

4. On reading of the extract of the Circular dated 16th March, 1990, it would appear that the pay of the petitioner as Development Officer had to be fixed at the lowest stage in the scale of pay of Record Clerk and thereafter was entitled to one increment after every two years on completion of his service as Development Officer which could be granted. The Circular mandates that the pay scale which was to be fixed shall not be more than the pay scale he was drawing as Development Officer at the time of his termination. In his rejoinder, the petitioner does not dispute this assertion of facts by the respondents in the counter affidavit.

5. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was entitled to the benefit under a Circular dated 7th November, 1989 whereby an amendment was made to the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision or Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 1985. It is urged that the by this notification there was revision of terms and conditions of the service of Development Officers instructions, 1986 and fitment chart or Revised Basic pay scale structure, 1986 was stipulated. We find that the petitioner was entitled to and given the benefit of subsequent Circular dated 16th March, 1990. There is nothing before us to show that at the time of his termination of his service as a Development Officer, the petitioner’s pay scale was more than Rs.930/- per month as stated in the counter affidavit. Necessary averment in the counter affidavit reads as under: “The basic pay of the petitioner at the time of termination as Development Officer was Rs.350/- per month. Accordingly, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.930/- per month (i.e. the minimum of the scale of record clerk).

6. For these reasons, we find no error in the pay fixation of the petitioner by the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pay of the other persons similarly situated has been fixed at higher grade. Other persons have been given the benefit of the Circular dated 16th March, 1990 which has been denied to the petitioner. Nothing has been pointed from the record which would enable us to conclude that the petitioner has been denied any benefit which he was entitled under the said Circular or has been discriminated against.

8. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. GITA MITTAL, J DEEPA SHARMA, J MAY 23, 2014 rb