JUDGMENT
K.S. Kumaran, J.
1. The Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Bhalle Pind, Tehsil Ajnata (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-mills) advertised in the Newspaper dated 12.10.1990 (annexure P-1) for filling vacancies in certain posts like Fitter Helper, Electrical Helper, Moulder-1 etc. The advertisement, among other things mentioned that the pay
scales and other general allowances will be given according to the provisions of the Sugar Wage Board. Accordingly, the petitioners herein applied for the posts mentioned against their names in the petition (like Moulder, Khalasi, Blacksmith, Helper-Electrical, Fitter-Helper, Turner-Helper, M/W Helper etc.). After interview the petitioners were issued selection letters (copy of one of which has been attached with this petition as annexure P-2), and were advised to join duties immediately. It was also mentioned that the grade pay scales etc. will be mentioned in the appointment letter which will be issued to the selected candidate after joining duty. The petitioners accordingly joined duties, but claim that the respondent-Mills did not issue the appointment letters, and they were paid a fixed salary of Rs. 1200/- p.m. The petitioners claim that the employees in the categories such as Fitter-1, Fitter-II, Turner-1, Motor Winder etc. who were selected and appointed on the basis of same advertisement, are being paid as per the prescribed grades fixed by the Sugar Wage Board from the date of their appointment. The petitioners also claim mat as per the Sugar Wages Board, the pay scale for the post of Khlasi/Fitter/Helper/Electrical Helpers has been fixed at Rs. 800-1250 plus usual allowances, and that for the skilled categories like Welder/Mechanic, Blacksmiths the pay scale have been prescribed at Rs. 1050-1600, while for khalasi etc. it has been fixed at Rs. 900-1250.
2. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 381 of 1995 and C.W.P. No. 2379 of 1995 praying for a direction to regularise their services and for the grant of regular pay scales of Rs. 800-1250 and Rs. 900-1250 with all consequential benefits from the dates of their initial appointment. But, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said petitions with the observation that the petitioners may file representations within a month, and that the representations so filed be disposed of by a speaking order within three months thereafter. The petitioners made representations to the respondent- Mills, and the respondent mills regularised the services of the petilioners from 17.6.1996.
3. The petilioners claim that the services of the employees in the categories who were selected and appointed in pursuance of the same advertisement have been regularised after 2/3 months of their joining duties, and are also being paid the pay scales as fixed by the Sugar Wage Board from the date of their initial appointments and, therefore, the action of the respondent-mills in not regularising the services of the petitioners from the dates of their initial appointment and in not releasing the regular pay scales, according to the pay scales prescribed by the Sugar Wage Board, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and also against the selection letters issued to them.
4. The petitioners further claim that the representations made by them to grant the pay scales of Rs. 800-1250 and Rs. 900-1250 from the date of their initial appointment has neither been considered nor the relief granted.
5. That is why the petitioners have approached this
Court with this writ petition for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give regular pay scales Rs. 800-1250 and Rs. 900-1250 from the dates of their initial appointments with ail consequential benefits including interest @ 18% p.a. The petitioners have also prayed that their services be regularised w.e.f. their initial date of appointment and their seniority be fixed accordingly.
6. The third-respondent has filed reply alleging that the Mill started functioning in January 1991, whereas the advertisement was issued in October 1990 for recruitment to different posts even before start to the mill, and since the mill was yet to start functioning, it was decided not to make recruitment on regular basis at the initial stage before start of the mill. According to the respondent the appointments to different posts were made and the employees were recruited on fixed wages at D.C. rates, and the petitioners who were also employed on fixed wages in 1990-91, continued to work on revised rate as prescribed for daily wages employees by the Deputy Commissioner, for more than four years.
7. This respondent claim that the petitioners submitted a representation for regularisation of their services, and it was resolved by the Board of Directors by a resolution dated 2.1.1996 to regularise the services of the employees after examining the record of each of them, and that the employees wilt be entitled to regularise pay scales from the date of their rcgularisation as the mill is already going in losses of Rs. 40 crores. In pursuance of the resolution the services of the petitioners were regularised w.e.f. 17.6.1996, and they have also been granted regular pay scales of the posts on which they are working. This respondent claims that the petitioners who remained silent for about 5 years after joining their services, tiled the earlier writ petitions in the year 1995 and, therefore, cannot claim that they should be granted regular scales from the date of their initial appointments. According to the respondent the claim is highly belated.
8. This respondent urges that none of the employees in the categories of the petitioners was recruited on regular basis initially, and all the employees have been considered and regularised on scniority-cum-merit basis. This respondent claims that the petitioners have been regularised from 17.6.1996 and have been granted regular pay scales from the date of their regu-larisation in service. This respondent further claims that the petitioners are not entitled to regular pay scales from the date of their initial appointment as they were employed on fixed wages at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and that the petitioners have not been discriminated.
9. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the written statement of the third- respondent reiterating their stands and claiming that the respondents cannot escape from the written commitment made to the petitioners in the the advertisement and the selection letters and are barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The petitioners have also stated that the Union of the petitioners has
also made representations to regularise their services and to release the pay scale and allowances as fixed by the Sugar Wage Board. According to the petitioners the Union had made a representation dated 28.10.1992 in response to which a meeting of the Union and the administration of the respondent-mills was held on 1.3.1993 wherein it was decided that the respondent mills will prepare a list of employees who have been issued provisional selection letters, category-wise, and to work out the financial implication etc.
10. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
11. The contention of the petitioners is that they applied in pursuance of the advertisemcnt-annexure P-1 dated 12.10.1990 issued by the respondent-mills wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the posts concerned are permanent (by mentioning the letter (P) indicating thereby that the posts are permanent). The petitioners also contend that the advertisement mentioned that pay scales and general allowance will be according to the provisions of the Sugar Wage Board, but without issuing appointment letters, the petitioners were sent selection letters (specimen copy-annexure P-2) advising the petitioners to join immediately and mentioning that the grade etc. will be mentioned in the appointment letters, which will be issued to the petitioners after they joined duty. The petitioners contend that they accordingly joined duties, but were not issued any appointment letters and were paid the fixed salary Rs. 1200/-p.m. Pointing out these factors the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been regularly selected by a duly constituted slection committee and appointed, and in the circumstances the third-respondent is barred by the principles of promissory estoppel from contending that though in the advertisement, it was mentioned that the posts are permanent or seasonal as the case may be, before the recruitment of the petitioners they were informed that the appointments arc not being made on regular basis, and that they will be informed about the terms and conditions of appointment after the Mill starts its operation. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that such a contention is against the written advertisement annexure P-1 wherein it has been indicated that the posts are permanent and that the pay scales and the other general allowances will be according to the provisions of the Sugar Wage Board, and there is also no indication that the person selected will be informed about the terms and conditions later on. He further contends that this contention of the respondents, therefore, cannot be entertained or accepted. I agree wiih the learned counsel for the petilioners in this respect. Advertisment-an-nexure P-1 states hat the posts are permanent and that the pay scale and allowances will be according to the Sugar Wage Board. The selection letter (annexure P-2) while direcling the petitioners to join immediately stales that the grade etc. will be mentioned in the appointment letter which will be issued after joining the duty. It has nowhere been indicated that the appoint-
merits are either temporary, and there is also no indication that the appointments are not made on regular basis. Therefore, the present contention that the petitioners were informed (probably orally) that their appointments are not regular and that the terms and conditions of the appointment will be informed later cannot be accepted. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners the third-respondent is barred by the principles of promissory estoppel from putting forth such pleas as are now put forward. The petitioners have worked from the year 1990. It may be that they have been paid a fixed salary of Rs. 1200/- per month but that is contrary to the advertisement-annexure P-1. The contention of the respondent-mill that the petitioners have accepted the appointments on fixed wages basis and have worked as such for nearly five years and, therefore, their present claim is belated or barred by estoppel in view of their conduct cannot be accepted at all. The petitioners have produced annexure P-6, the copy of the proceedings of the meeting between the respondent-mills and the Union of the employees held on 1.3.1993 wherein it has been decided that the office will prepare a list of employees, who have been issued provisional letters category-wise/designation-wise/gradewise and should inform the employees accordingly, and that the Managing Director would get worked out the total number of employees and the financial implication involved, within 15 days. According to the petitioners, the Union of the employees made a representation on 28.10.1992 for regularising their services and to release the regular pay scales and, therefore, the decision as mentioned in Annexure P-6 was taken. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners conlends that it is not as if the petitioners had accepted appointment on fixed wages basis without raising any question. 1 agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in this respect also. The petitioners were issued selection letters mentioning that the grade etc. will be mentioned in the appointment letter. The appointment letters were not issued at all. The advertisement specifically said that the pay scales and other general allowances will be given according to the provisions of the Sugar Wage Board. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioners must have been waiting for the respondent-mills to issue the appointment letters giving them regular scales of pay as promised in the advertisement and as mentioned in Annexure P-2 (the selection letters). Inasmuch as that was not given, they had made a representation through the Union of the employees on which a decision has been taken as per Annexure P-6 pointed out above. Therefore, the respondent-mills cannot contend that the petitioners are barred by their conduct from claiming the regularisation from the dale of their initial appointment or regular scales of pay from the said dates or that their claim is belated.
12. Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors, I am of Ihe view that the petitioners, who applied in pursuance of the advertisement-annexure P-1 have been regularly selected by a duly constituted selection committee and, therefore, are entitled to be regularised
from the dates of their initial appointment instead of 1996 and are entitled to be paid regular scales of pay as prayed for from the respective dates of their initial appointment.
13. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that some other employees who have been selected and appointed in pursuance of the very same advertisement are being paid more pay after three months of their appointment and, therefore, they are also entitled to be paid equally. But, it has been denied by the respondent-mills that none of the employee? in the categories of the petitioners are being paid more wages. The petitioners have not placed any material to show the nature of the work of the other employees, their qualifications etc. to show that the petitioners are similarly situated and, therefore, entitled to be paid equally. Therefore, the petitioners’ claim on this ground cannot be accepted.
14. But, in view of discussion above, the services of the petitioners have to be regularised from the respective dates of their initial appointment, and they are also entitled to be paid regular scales o! pay from the respective dates of their initial appointment as prayed for. But, so far as the arrears are conferred, the petitioners will be entitled to the same from a period of 38 months preceding the dates of the earlier writ petitions namely; CWP No. 381 of 1995 and CWP No. 2379 of 1995 filed by them respectively.
15. So far as seniority is concerned, teamed counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no difficulty with regard to the seniority and, therefore, the petitioners have no grievance about the same. Therefore, no order is passed with regard to the same.
16. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to pay regular scales as prayed for and as fixed by the Sugar Wage Board to the petitioners from the respective dates of their initial appointment. The petitioners shall be paid the arrears from a period of 38 months preceding the date of the earlier writ petitions CWP No. 381 of 1995 and CWP No. 2379 of 1995 filed by them respectively. Their services should also be regularised accordingly from the respective dates of their initial appointment.
The arrears be paid within three months from today otherwise, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 15% R.A. from the date of this order.
17. Petition allowed.
