Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment of the respondent in the U.P. State Horticultural Produce, Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (HORTICO), which was closed on 15.7.1990. At the time of closure, the respondent was drawing a basic pay of Rs.1060/- in the pay scale of Rs.900-1770. Following the closure, the government issued an order on 26.4.1991 for the appointment of retrenched employees in available posts outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission, assuring pay protection. The respondent was temporarily appointed as Deputy Jailor on 1.10.1991 with a new pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. He later sought to be covered by a revised pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 effective from 1.1.1986, which was rejected by the State Government on 24.8.1999. The respondent's writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that his last pay protection should be in the revised scale, which was contested by the State of U.P. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that both the Tribunal and High Court overlooked the fact that the revised pay scale was never adopted by HORTICO, rendering the respondent's claim untenable. The court emphasized that without adoption, the mere existence of a revised scale does not confer entitlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court, allowing the appeal without costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Pay Protection - Entitlement to Revised Pay Scale - U.P. State Horticultural Produce, Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. Act, 1990 - The court held that the respondent was not entitled to the revised pay scale as it was never adopted by HORTICO before its closure, making the claim untenable. The Tribunal and High Court erred in concluding otherwise, as mere prescription of a revised scale without adoption by the employer is insufficient for entitlement (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to the revised pay scale despite the closure of HORTICO and the non-adoption of the revised scale by the Corporation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pay protection
- Revised pay scale
- Employment law
- Compassionate appointment
- Closure of corporation
