High Court · 1996

The Corporation would resist the case of the writ petitioners on the ground that the writ petitioners have not been recruited to the Stores Department of the Corporation and in fact, they were recruited as Junior Clerks only and they were re-categorized purely on administrative necessity and exigency and since they were not recruited to the Stores Department, they cannot compare their cases with such of those qualified candidates, who got recruited to the Stores Department. It will be relevant to notice that the Corporation, as a policy, has preferred to grant four additional increments, to such candidates who possess LME or LAE or graduation qualification and got recruited from the open market through the method of direct recruitment. Perhaps, this decision was taken by the Corporation to attract not only the best talent available in the open market, but also keeping in view the nature of work, which is required to be performed by the candidates in Stores Department. Normally, candidates possessing additional qualifications required would not be rewarded with additional increments. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the Corporation has noticed that the nature of duties and responsibilities liable to be performed in Stores Department were such they require candidates with higher qualifications so that the requisite efficiency of services can be found. In such circumstances, whether an Assistant Warder is directly recruited or is based upon re-categorization, makes no difference. Although the Corporation is needed to verify as to whether the candidate possesses the LME or LAE or Graduation qualification or not. Similarly, the Corporation also cannot make any distinction between the persons recruited prior to 1st January 1976 and post 1st January 1976. There is no basis much less a valid basis for this dichotomy amongst the recruitees. It is a different thing to say that a revised scale of pay has become available for post 1st January 1976 recruitees. That will be purely an incidence of service because scales of pay of employees keep getting revised periodically, but however, when it comes to the question of granting additional incentives in the form of increments, the Corporation cannot distinguish between pre and post 1st January 1976 recruitees. If candidates possess the same set of qualifications, as noted supra, LAE or LME or graduation, all of them must get equal treatment. Failure to do so by a public sector undertaking, which answers the description of State for the purpose of Article 12, the respondent corporation, would amount discrimination between equals. Persons, who have been recruited by way of re-categorization, also perform the same nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Assistant Warders. Therefore, based upon the source of recruitment or the date of their recruitment, they cannot be subjected to differential treatment. That would be plainly impermissible. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. However, it shall be open to the Corporation to verify as to whether the two petitioners did possess LAE or LME or graduation qualification at the time of their re-categorization as Junior Warders in Stores Department or not. If they possess any of those qualifications, it goes without saying that they will also be entitled to the benefit of four advance increments. If it is found that they do not possess any such qualifications, then, the Corporation would be justified in recovering the additional increments paid to them erroneously. In such an event, the Corporation would recover the arrears by granting reasonable number of monthly installments for such recovery, to the petitioners. With this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd December 2009