Michael Mili v. IFCI Limited

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent-company seeks the relief of setting aside of the orders passed 2013:DHC:6481 by the respondent dated 1.8.2013, 13.9.2013 and 25.9.2013 whereby pay scale and allowances of the petitioner have been revised downwards.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner became an employee of the respondent-company (as Senior Associate Vice President) when the respondent-company was a private company. Appointment with the respondent-company in its private avtar was therefore a contractual employment. For this contractual appointment, there was no specific period. Once there is no specific period, the appointment is only month to month. The respondent-company thereafter became a governmentcompany (i.e instrumentality of State and reference to this government company in this judgment is therefore reference to such instrumentality of State) as the government took financial and managerial control of the respondent-company.

3. I put it to the counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner claims the benefits of a contractual employee or the status and benefits of an employee of a public sector undertaking or an instrumentality of State. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner claims status of an employee of a government company and not any contractual status. Once that is so, no contractual benefits can be given, assuming they existed in favour of the petitioner consequent to his employment with the respondent-company. Once contractual rights are not claimed, this Court will have to only examine the action of the respondent on the touchstone of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India with respect to any arbitrary action in changing the pay scale of the petitioner.

4. The fact of the matter is that the respondent-company being a financial institution decided to adopt the salary structure as given by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Once the petitioner accepts his status as an employee of the government company, and not a contractual status, the government company is entitled to fix its own pay scales. It is only if the action of the government company is arbitrary and violative of the Constitutional right enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, would such an action of the respondent be liable to be challenged in a Court of law. On the aspect of arbitrariness, counsel for the petitioner has referred to grounds 4(i) and 4(iv) of the writ petition which read as under:- “4(i) Because the order for revision of scales of pay and allowances by the Respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable. 4(iv) Because the Respondent has failed to follow the principles of natural justice while not giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard before implementing its order of revision of scales of pay and allowances.”

5. In my opinion, arbitrariness is not a mantra to be chanted. Arbitrariness is a conclusion and for such conclusion necessary facts have to be stated as to how the action of the respondent-company is arbitrary. Surely, fixing of a particular pay scale for the employees of the respondent-company in accordance with the RBI pay structure cannot be said to be arbitrary, much less on the limited grounds/facts which are averred in the writ petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioner did seek to argue at one stage of hierarchy of the designation and pay structure of a private company with the hierarchy, designation and pay structure of the respondent-company which is a government company, but, in my opinion that would be like comparing oranges with apples. I do not understand as to under which law and how the designations, hierarchy and salary structures of a private company can be compared with equivalent aspects in a government company.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 17, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne