Manohar Singh v. NTPCLTD.

1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to release the amount of safety allowance w.e.f 1.1.1988 and to quash the office orders dated 12.10.2010 and 18.10.2010 issued by the respondent whereby the request of the petitioner for the said claim has been declined.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor Grade-II (C&I) by the respondent vide letter of appointment dated 7.12.1981. After joining the respondent, as per three years promotion policy of the respondent, on 1.1.1985 the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Superintendent Grade-I (C&I-O&M) w.e.f 1.1.1985. On 21.7.1986, the respondent vide order dated 21.7.1986 transferred the petitioner to Safety W.P.(C) 8289/201Q Page 1of[5] 2013:DHC:7144 w Department at Korba Super Thermal Project (KSTPP), Korba (MP).

3. After having worked there for over six months the petitioner made a representation dated 7.2.1987 reminding the respondent about the safety allowance as assured by the then GM with whom he had joined the Safety Department. Thereafter, the General Manager of the respondent vide letter dated 21.3.1987 recommended a sum of ^150/- p.m. as safety allowance to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was also recommended for the course of "Diploma in Industrial Safety" at Regional Labour Institute, Kanpur. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Safety) and was transferred to Kawas w.e.f. 30.7.1988. It is alleged that petitioner achieved various achievements during his working with the respondent. In 1999, he was given promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Safety) and transferred from NTPC, Kawas to NTPC, Badarpur, NewDelhi. On31.8.2003, the petitioner stood retired. However, during his working in the Safety Department he wasnevergiven the safety allowance.

4. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition on 12.10.2007 i.e. CWP No.7675/2007. There in the counter affidavit it was admitted byrespondent that petitioner was recommended for safety allowance. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation dated 29.1.2009 for payment of safety allowance for the period of his service in the Safety Department but no payment was made to him. Ultimately, he filed a writ petition i.e. CWP No.6576/2010 before this court. The said petition came up for hearing on 27.9.2010 which was disposed ofwith the direction tothe respondent to dispose of representation dated 29.1.2009 of the petitioner about his entitlement of safety allowance by a speaking order within six weeks from W.P.(C) 8289/2010 Page 2of[5] the date of disposal of the said writ petition. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the letter/order dated 12.10.2010 of Deputy General Manager, HR of respondent informing that there is no such scheme for the safety allowance in vogue in NTPC as such the payment of safety allowance to employees does not arise. He was also informed in this regard by the Senior Manager (HR-ER/Law) vide letter dated 18.10.2010.

5. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is fded.

6. It may be mentioned that there are other prayers also made in the present writ petition. However, at the outset of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he is only pressing this petition for the grant of safety allowance of T150/- p.m. for the period of service of petitioner in Safety Department i.e. w.e.f. July, 1986 upto the period he worked in the said Department and also for quashing of order dated 12.10.2010 and 18.10.2010 issued by respondent wherein the representation for the said claim has been rejected.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalfof the respondent wherein the stand taken isthat there isno scheme with the respondent for payment of safety allowance. It is stated that there was only a recommendation for payment of safety allowance but the same were never approved nor any policy was framed so the question to pay any safety allowance does not arise.

8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has referred to counter affidavit ofthe respondent filed in CWP No.7675/2007, specifically Para 3 of the said counter affidavit to substantiate his stand that petitioner is entitled for the safety allowance. W.P.(C) 8289/2010 Page 3of[5]

9. On the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that petitioner is misconstruing the said part of the counter affidavit. It is stated that there was never any scheme for the said allowance and the petitioner was only recommended for safety allowance off 150/- p.m. and the petitioner is misconstruing the said affidavit in order to create a right in his favour. The learned counsel submits that the intention expressed in the said affidavit was that there was only a recommendation for payment of allowance and nothing more.

10. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has worked in the Safety Department for a long period i.e. w.e.f. July, 1986 till his retirement i.e. 31.8.2003. Duringthe aforesaid periodhe had been working in the aforesaid Department. As per him, he had only given one representation i.e. 17.2.1987 wherein also as perhim he hadreminded the GM regarding safety allowance as assured by the then GM. It is not his case that there was any scheme or there were any terms and conditions of service of the petitioner that for working in Safety Department the employees will be paid safety allowance. The recommendation of GM does not create any right in his favour to get the safety allowance. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any of the employee working in the Safety Department was getting the safety allowance whereas he has been discriminated. The respondent has categorically taken a stand that no incentive scheme for safety allowance was ever introduced by the respondent at any point of time. It is also the stand of the respondent that petitioner had voluntarily opted for work of Safety Department. No relief can also be given to the petitioner even on the basis of the stand of the respondent in counter affidavit of W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 8289/2010 \ No.7675/2007 as it has been clarified during the arguments that the same was only an inadvertent error. The petitioner can't be granted reliefonly on the basis ofrecommendation as is alleged by him. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to, costs. MAY 09, 2013 kks W.P.(C) 8289/2010 VEENA BIRBAL, J