H.P. State Cement Corpn. Ltd. & Ors Vs. B.K. Tiwari [1997] INSC
928 (11 December 1997)
D.P.
WADHWA, A.P. MISHRA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
D.P. Wadhwa,
J.
Special
Leave granted.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 4, 1977 of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the writ petition of the
respondent whereby he was held entitled to the benefits of the revised pay
scale and designation of the post he was holding.
In
pursuance to an advertisement issued by the appellant the respondent applied
for a post of Manager (Personnel) Grade E4 by letter dated May 1, 1986. He was, however, offered the post of Deputy Manager
(P & IR) on terms and conditions as mentioned in letter dated October 23, 1986 of the appellant. The respondent
declined this post stating that he had applied for the post of Manager (P &
IR) and could not accept the post of Deputy Manager (P & IR ).
This
was by letter dated November
5, 1986. In the
meanwhile, there was revision of pay scales of the officers and staff of the
appellant, which was communicated to the appellant by letter dated November 12, 1986 of the State Government. The
relevant part of the revision of pay scales is as under:
"-----------------------------------------------------------
SL. Designation Pay Scales Designation Pay Scales No. (In Rs.) (In Rs.)
------------------------------------------------------------
3. Dy.
Manager\ 1400-1800 Manager 1500-60- Sr. Dy. Manager (works) 1800-100- Manager
2000
4.
Manager / 1500-2000 Joint Sr. 1800-100- Company Manager 2000-125- Secretary
(Works)/ 2-2250 Company 2-2250 Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------" Then comes
the appointment letter issued to the respondent. This letter is in brief and we
merely produce the same as under:
"Gram:
UP CEMENT CHURK ------------------------- The Uttar Pradesh State Cement
Corporation Ltd.
(AUP
Govt. Undertaking) Registered Post (Seal)
UNIT:
CHURK CEMENT FACTORY.
---------------------------
REGD. OFFICE CHURK 231206 Dept: Ref No. PS/HQ/R-10/1038 Dated: December 4, 1986 -----------------------------
-------------------------- To.
Shri
B.K. Tiwari, 120, Vindhweshni Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Varanasi Cantt., 221 002.
Sub:
Offer of Appointment for the Post of Manager (Personnel & IR) --------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No. NIL of dated 5th November, 1986 on the above subject. After due
consideration it has been decided to amend your appointment offer to the
following extent.
1.
Your designation is hereby amended as Manager (Personnel & IR).
2.
Your basic pay will be Rs. 1,500/- per month in the scale of pay of Rs.
1500-60-1800-100-2000.
3.
Your joining time is hereby extended up to 15th February, 1987. No further extension will be
granted.
All other
terms and conditions of our appointment offer No. PS/HQ/R-10/872 dated
23.10.1986 remain unaltered.
Yours
faithfully Sd/- (N.M. Majumdar) Chairman and Managing Director" The
respondent accepted the offer given to him by the aforesaid appointment letter
and accepted the post of the Manager (P & IR). He joined this post on
February 28, 1987 and on April 24, 1987 represented to the appellant that he
was entitled to placement in the revised grade of Rs. 1800- 2250/- which
according to him was applicable to Manager (P & IR) Head Quarter. This
representation was rejected and this led to filing of the writ petition by the
respondent in the High Court which was allowed as aforesaid.
We do
not think there is much controversy involved in the present case. The respondent
said that at the time when he had applied for the post of Manager (E-4) it was
in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000/- and what was offered to him was the post of
Deputy Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 1800/-. Thus, according to the
respondent, when he was offered the post of Manager, the pay scale had already
been revised to Rs. 1800-2250/- to which, he said, he was entitled to. We don't
think this contention of the respondent can be accepted. Letter offering him
the appointment of Manager is specific. This letter, as noted above, was
written after the revision of pay scales. Not only that, the letter mentioning
the designation of the respondent had also, in clear terms, mentioned the pay
scale of the Manager which was being offered to him.
This
letter was accepted by the respondent with the terms and conditions therein.
The respondent cannot read in the letter more than what it says. Offer or
appointment was given to the respondent after revision of the pay scales and
the appellant could not possibly had given the old pay scales. We, therefore,
do not accept the view taken by the High Court.
We,
accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismiss the
writ petition filed by the respondent. The appeal is allowed with no order as
to costs.
Back