CWP No.17498 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CASE NO.: CWP No.17498 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: November 27, 2008
M.L. SHARMA ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA.
PRESENT: MR. B.R. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. K.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
Counsel for the respondents pray for time to file reply. However,
after going their the writ petition as well as the judgement (Annexure P-10), we
consider it appropriate not to grant adjournment to the respondents, because
the case is squarely covered by the Judgement annexure P-10.
The petitioner joined service in the Food Corporation of India as
Technical Assistant Grade III in the year 1971. The respondent-Corporation
invited options from its employees for adopting the wage revision on Industrial
Dearness Allowance (IDA) or Central Dearness Allowance pattern. The
petitioner opted the wage revision on IDA pattern and hence he was entitled to
the benefits of wage revision from time to time on IDA pattern and thus, his
pay was required to be refixed on this pattern w.e.f 1.1.1997, on the basis of
circular dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner claims that he is
entitled to wage revision and all other benefits on the basis Annexure P-1.
Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents where it has been
averred that as the seniority case of the petitioner is pending in the Allahabad
High Court (Lucknow Bench), therefore, till the same is decided, the petitioner
cannot be granted the benefits of wage revision in terms of circular (Annexure
P-1).
CWP No.17498 of 2008 -2-
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of
this Court in CWP No.14162 of 2006 decided on 9.10.2007, Bachittar Singh
vs. Food Corporation of India and others (Annexure P-10). Learned counsel
submits that the present case is squarely covered by Bachittar Singh’s case
(supra).
Mr. K.K. Gupta, counsel for the respondents submits that if this
petition is allowed in terms of the judgement (Annexure P-10), then it would
be very difficult for the respondents to recover the amount in case there is
some change in the seniority list.
This question was considered by the Division Bench in Bachittar
Singh’s case (supra) wherein their Lordships held as under:-
“One thing is certain that when the petitioner retired, he became
entitled to payment of arrests of pay. The petitioner exercised his
option for wage revision on the basis of Industrial Dearness
Allowance (IDA) pattern and claimed recovery of arrears of pay.
The petitioner cannot be denied payment of arrears on the
speculative ground that his seniority may be lowered and
consequently his pay also go down in the event of the case being
decided against him by the Allahabad High Court.”
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this
case is squarely covered by the decision in Bachittar Singh’s case (supra) and
we allow the writ petition in the same terms.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
November 27, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Gulati JUDGE