Pay scale once fixed cannot be altered

Delhi Transport Corporation through Regional Manager vs. Ishwar Singh, Batch No. 15664 S/o Shri Dalip Singh, The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal –I and The Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary Labour and Human Welfare Ministry

Filed Under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
Appellants: Delhi Transport Corporation through Regional Manager
Respondent: Ishwar Singh, Batch No.15664 S/o Shri Dalip Singh, The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal –I and The Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary Labour and Human Welfare Ministry
Citation: WP (C) 1702/2003, Decided on 01.11.2004 (Unreported)
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judge: Madan B. Lokur

This is an appeal filed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal passing an order for pay protection with an amount which was higher than the one awarded by the Higher Court.

Facts

Ishwar Singh was working as a driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation. During a routine check up, he was found to be having color blindness and for this reason he was pre-maturely retired from service. He was offered a post in a lower grade but he declined it.

Then, he filed a Writ Petition challenging his pre-mature retirement and by an order, a Division Bench(two judges) directed the Corporation to absorb him in the lower grade of peon in Class IV.

It was also directed that the date of his pre-mature retirement to the date of his absorption as a peon would not be treated as a break in service for the purposes of pension and retirement benefits. It was also held that Ishwar was not entitled to claim seniority in the new grade of peon.

As regards wages for the intervening period, he was at liberty to raise an industrial dispute. Thereafter Ishwar filed a special leave petition against the order but the same was dismissed. Eventually, he was appointed as a peon on a basic pay of Rs.775/- per month in the scale of Rs.775/-1025.

Aggrieved by the fixation of his pay at the bottom of the grade he filed another Writ Petition praying for a direction that he should be given the last drawn pay as his basic pay. That petition was heard (along with other petitions of the nature that were pending the Court) and a common judgment (Narender Singh v. DTC) was passed.

The Court held that there was no discrimination between him and other employees. The distinction in his case and the other three persons was that those three persons had accepted their re-designation to the post of peon while in service but he had not accepted this re-designation.

On the contrary, he was offered the job of a peon, which he declined to accept and, therefore, it was also held that he could not be placed at par with the three persons mentioned above.

It was also held that the terms and conditions of appointment were offered to him and he was told that he would be absorbed as a peon in the basic pay of Rs.775/- per month. This was duly accepted by him and he could not now agitate for a higher pay scale. Therefore he was not entitled to the relief prayed for.

Subsequently, Ishwar raised an industrial dispute in which, upon the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, the Tribunal held that he should be given the benefit of pay protection. In that case, the Tribunal raised the question whether Ishwar was entitled to the maximum pay of Rs.1025/- in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025 along with increments.

After referring to the Persons with the Disabilities Act, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ishwar Singh should be given the benefit of pay protection.

Observations of the Court

TThe Court referred to the point raised on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation that the Persons with Disabilities Act,1995 does not have retrospective operation and held that Ishwar Singh cannot be allowed  to take advantage of DTC who was pre-mature retired as far back in 1993 and was absorbed as a peon in 1994.

Futher, it was held that Ishwar Singh was bound by the decision given by the High Court in division Court. It held that the Tribunal could not go contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in Narender Singh and thereby award Ishwar a higher basic pay of Rs.1025/- per month.

It was stated that the scope of jurisdiction that was available to the Tribunal was limited only to the question of wages for the intervening period from the date of pre-mature retirement till the date of his absorption as a peon.

The Tribunal could not have gone beyond the permission given by the Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Court and it was held that the basic pay of Ishwar was correctly fixed at Rs.775/-per month. It is ordered accordingly.

The writ petition was allowed

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • Narender Singh vs. DTC, WP (C) No. 5050/1994
  • DTC vs. Daljit Singh, WP (C) No. 3294/2003