IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2091 DAY OF' AUGUST 2908
BEFORE
THE HODVBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJ3~i¥ :'/ '
WRIT PETITION N0.38-4~25[-2002(S-_}.1§_§sg}'I.
BETWEEN :
Z.T.I. Officers Association (Regd.);
(A registered Trade Union
registered under the .
Indian Trade Unions Act], _ '
Represented by the Secretary; V V
I.'E'.I. Limited, Door.-awar1inag3r,
Bangalore --~ 560 016-3, r ~
E. ..fi5ETI'I'iONER
(By fer
MA/S.Subba§*ao L E
AND I
._Th6.,'U'i'}iQJ{.i of India,-. ..... .. v
Represeiitcd by the
V' Serztetaiy £0] Govemment,
Mir;-E13tI'y' vr5i'..(_3(2£1:e:i1uI1icaLtio11s ,
Dcpai'tIne1f§t- i;fe"Fe1ecoInn1uI1icatiens,
No.20, Asheka Road, Sanchar
New Dem: -- 1 10 001.
2. ee§M,:s;E::.T.1. Limited,
Represented by the
E Chéairman &
" M?anag'ng Director,
' » A. 'Corporate Ofiice,
No.45] 1, Magath Road,
Bangalore --~ 560 025.
3. The General Manager, _
M/S.I.'l'.I. Limited,
Bangalore Complex,
Dooravaninagar,
Bangalore ~--- 560 O 16.
4. The General Manager,
N.S.1.1nit, I.T.I. Limited,
I.'I'.I. Bhavan,
Dooravanmagar,
Bangalore -- 560 O 16.
5. The General Manager,
E.C. Plant, I.T.I. Limited,
Hebbagudi, .
Electronic City, A'
Bangalore -- 561 229.
(By R1,
Sri."R"a;jam3a, ii, , Pl<ixr.'for
Si?i_.U(iaya'-l~{elIa,for -R2, 3 a 5)
This writ petit.ioI_1',--.is "filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution zof India with a prayer to direct the
hriaiiageiztengof M! S. I;'E";'E;' limited to recalculate the pay
and aliowmces the fiment of the petitiones as per
the 'a_ption/'i§'e¢OplEion exercised by them in accordance
with i*he'--..,eiI'e:31L'«u*;;regarding revised pay scale which
Keame into fomei'4;with effect from 1.1.97 and to gant
them all consequential benefits incluciing arrears with
' " ~~ §ei'l«'e_ct from "the date from which they became entitled to
.1 =t.he._benefits, as denial of the said benefit is
'*Varh_itm13I,_..*capI'icious, unjust and unsustainable apart
-frem being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Crxnstitution of India.
V' This writ petition coming on for hearing, this day,
,:the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the I.’I’.I.
Association for a writ of mandamus directfiég ‘A .1
respondents to recalculate the pay
the fitment of the petitioners to 7}’
regarding revised pay scale,
effect from 01.01.1997 and etc’… stich other
requests. 1′ V’ V 1 1
2. It is I}.0t__iE1. to Annexure
‘A’, a “revised pay scales and
allowances respect of Executives in
VV..Grades”5g1 _19. A’ ‘*T1__1e .ct1t-off date, it appears was
01.0i.’199?.’-czause 3 of the said Circular would dea}
L-.____With”re?4optio1i.i’ori promotion after pay revision, which
yvtegid necessarily mean that the option was given to the
to have his pay fixed as on the date of the
1′ or as on the date of the promotion. All the
empioyees who were promoted after 01.01.1997 had
opted for implementation of the revised pay scale from
the date of promotion. Indeed in so far as the
employees who got promoted prior to the cutoff date
01.01.1997, nothing was said.
3. Mr.M.submmanya Bhat, :ieé1i’fled
aPP@e.rir1g for the Petitioner submits to ” 1
Annexure ‘C’ dated 09.06.2001, was
the employees, who were , to
choose either the date of is date of
promotion to have; ‘SCaie:w.T’fixed. He
further thensaid Annexure ‘C’,
the petitioner¥Association’ ggiven representations,
copies of” are at Annexures ‘D’ to ‘J’,
wiiicii flare considered.
4.9′ learned counsel appearing for
~ iirfe-s«pondents’ 3 and 5 submits that there is a
V9 delay in approaching this Court inasmuch
f t1;e__§option was given to the prorootees prior to
3. 1997 and they having chosen to exercise their
option to have their revised pay fixed from the date of fig
Z
.5-
increment, the question of issuing mandamus in this-.__
regard would not arise. He further submits that
of the employees have already exercised their ‘a
He drew the attention of the Court to saiinemrg; V
5. I have perused clause-8’of-.4§tIniex1i:1’e.
as the representation given at 3 T.
appeals to be some sefloiis the
petitioners as well va.s’t1’1e which
date, the pmmq-tee’s__ iaere supposed
to exercise is not in a
position to made available as
to whether ” iirior to 01.01.1997 had
‘ogitsioiié Viiiasmuch as a specific stand is
taiieaiisy that the employees were given
choiee-..__to their option and they having not
i ” the saaie, their revised pay scale was fixed fimn
the increment. a’
Z
..5..
6. Indeed if the promotees pzior to 01.01.1997
were given an option and they have failed to exercise
their option, certainly their subsequent
contending that pursuant to Annextire ‘Q’. ~ A 3
entitled to exercise their option f} A it
certainly cannot be acceptedf h,oiveve3.’,’\” it
converse is true, the respondent$,:v!4_i::3tI;e_
to consider the said ” ‘
7. Consequently,_ petition of in the
foliowing
(a) Tiie hmmexures ‘D’ to ‘.5:
shall’ the respondents, if it is
, found option is not given to the
V prior to 01.01.1997, only in the
R
(by If ihediopttion was given to them in the
itself i.e., prior to 01.01.1997 and ifthey
.fhave not chosen to exercise their option at that
‘ “point of time, the question of directing the
respondents to consider the representation,
£2
does not arise.
((3) Respondents shall consider the
representations expeditiously.
Rule made absolute to the extent indicategi ‘
srs