W.P.(S) No. 4565 of 2015. Case: Charan Pal Singh Vs The Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
|W.P.(S) No. 4565 of 2015
|For Appellant: Manoj Tandon, Advocate and For Respondents: Gautam Shresth, Advocate
|Harish Chandra Mishra and Dr. S.N. Pathak, JJ.
|Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16
|February 09, 2017
|Jharkhand High Court
Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.
Heard the parties.
The present writ has been preferred challenging the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna (Ranchi Circuit Bench) in O.A. No. 81 of 2013(R) whereby the original application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Further prayer is for quashing the order dated 18.05.2015 granting all the reliefs the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Earlier in the O.A. filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal the petitioner had prayed for quashing the order dated 22.02.2010 to the extent it relates to the petitioner by which he was placed in the grade of E-5 detrimental to his interest as prior to merger of the Transferor Company, Bharat Refractory Limited (BRL), the petitioner was in the grade of E-7, holding the post of General Manager, Bhilai Refractory Plant. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 23.11.2010 Annexure-13 to the O.A. No. 18 of 2013 by which his representation has been rejected.
The factual exposition, as has been delineated in this writ petition is that the applicant was promoted to the post of General Manager (E-7) w.e.f. 01.10.2007 and after undergoing the mandatory period of probation was confirmed as such on 12.02.2009 by Bharat Refractories Ltd. (BRL). According to the applicant, the decision of the respondents not to put the petitioner in the Transferee Company on equivalent scales and in absence of the equivalent scale in the next above scale is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of K.A. Ansari & Anr. v. Indian Airlines Ltd. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 164 wherein it has been categorically held that if the cadre of a persons is changed, he will be entitled to an equivalent pay scale and in the absence of an equivalent pay scale, he would be entitled to be placed in the next above scale.
Before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondent-SAIL filed written statement. The financial position of the company (BRL) did not improve and owing to the continued poor financial condition, the Company had to be referred to BIFR time and again and was finally merged with Steel Authority of India Limited. As per notification of merger dated 28.07.2009, the service conditions of SAIL have been made applicable to executive of BRL retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2007. There was no discrimination between employees of...
To continue readingRequest your trial