IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 8022 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 27.07.2009
Brij Bhushan and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Union of India and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioners are the contract employees of the Army ITI
Ambala Cantt (respondent No.3 herein). They have filed the instant petition
for quashing of the letter dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) issued by
respondent No.3 to the Advocate of the petitioners, whereby their claim for
the revision of their pay scales with effect from January, 2006, as per the
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, i.e. Basic Pay + DA and
HRA at the rate of 50% of the rate entitled to the Central Government
employees as per the agreement dated 21.9.1998 (Annexure P-1), has been
rejected.
The petitioners are the contract employees and as per their
agreement, they were getting the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 plus HRA and
CWP No. 8022 of 2009 -2-
DA at the rate of 50%, entitled to the Central Government employees till
September, 2008. However, subsequently, with effect from October, 2008,
pay of the petitioners was revised and their basic pay was substantially
enhanced, while making HRA and DA payable at the rates of 25% of the
current rates entitled to Central Government employees. The revision of the
pay scales has resulted into increase of emoluments by approximately 25%.
It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid pay scale has
been revised in view of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission
and as per the earlier agreement of employment, the petitioners were to get
HRA and DA at the rate of 50% of the rate entitled to the Central
Government employees, and not at the rate of 25%, as is being paid to them.
The respondent Institute has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the
ground that it is not an instrumentality of the State, rather it is a private
Institute, which is registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies,
Haryana, and the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission are not
applicable to it. This Institute was established as a welfare measure for the
benefit of servicemen who retire from service at an early age.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit
in the instant petition. The petitioners are the contract employees and they
were being paid the salary as per the earlier agreement. Now, in view of the
new revised pay scales, respondent Institute has revised the pay scales of its
employees at its own, though it is not bound to follow the recommendations
of the Sixth Pay Commission. The salary of the petitioners has been
CWP No. 8022 of 2009 -3-
increased by 25%. Now HRA and DA are given to them at the rate of 25%
of the current rates, entitled to Central Government employees. The
petitioners have no legal right to claim the salary in terms of the
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. But keeping in view the
increase in prices, if their pay has been revised by the respondent Institute,
which is more than the pay which they were already receiving, the
petitioners further cannot legally claim that they are entitled for the HRA
and DA @ 50%. The respondent Institute is a private Institute, which is not
an instrumentality of the State. The petitioners are not the employees of the
Central Government. They are employees of a private Institute. Therefore,
no direction can be issued to respondent No.3 Institute to pay salary to the
petitioners in accordance with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission. Thus, I do not find any merit in the instant petition.
Dismissed.
July 27, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE