http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: F.C.I. DEPUTATIONIST ASSOC. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/08/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA, S.B.MAJMUDAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The  petitioners  are  challenging  the  order  of  the Division Bench  of the  Calcutta High  Court dated  June 12, 1996 made  in F.M.A.  No. 376/92.  The admitted  position is that while the respondents were working as Sub-Inspectors in the Food  Department of  the Government of West Bengal, they were taken on deputation to the petitioner-Corporation. They were made  to discharge the duties of the post of Assistants Grade-II. Admittedly, they had worked for more than 18 years in those  posts. While  absorbing them, question which arose was in  which scale  of pay they were to be fitted. In terms of paragraph  7 of the Corporation’s circular bearing No. 9- 1/87-EP (Pt.I), dated 23.9.1988, the respondents were sought to be  absorbed in  Assistant  Grade  III.  The  respondents challenged the  fitment in  the writ  petitions. The learned single Judge,  after consideration  of the  entire  material recorded as under      "From the  pleadings adduced by the      parties,  it  appears  before  this      Court that  because  of  continuous      satisfactory service  for 18  years      on  "deputation",  the  petitioners      having discharged  the function  of      Assistant Grade  II, at the time of      absorption the  petitioners are not      entitled  to   be  treated   in   a      discriminatory fashion by absorbing      them in  Assistant Grade III, as it      has been  done in  the facts of the      present case,  and, as such, in any      view, the writ petition is entitled      to   succeed   and   the   impugned      decision dated  September 22, 1988,      in so far as item No.7 is concerned      deciding   to   absorb   the   writ      petitioners in  Assistant Grade III      with effect  from July  1, 1984, is      set aside."      The  Division   Bench  had   also  concurred  with  the conclusion reached at by the learned single Judge thus:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    "From the  pleadings of the parties      it also  appeared that  because  of      continuous satisfactory service for      about 18  years on  deputation, the      deputationists      have       been      discharging   the    functions   of      Assistant Grade - II at the time of      absorption  and   accordingly  they      were  entitled   to  pay  scale  of      Assistant  Grade  -II  at  the  pay      scale of  Rs.380 - 640/-. We do not      find any  reason to  interfere with      the order  and judgment  passed  by      the   learned   trial   judge   and      accordingly we  affirm the decision      of the learned trial judge that the      appellant should  confer the pay of      the post  of Assistant  Grade -  II      carrying the  pay - scale of Rs.380      - 640/to  the said deputationist as      they were discharging the functions      of Assistant Grade - II at the time      of such absorption."      It  would  thus  be  clear  that  the  respondents  had discharged the  duty of the posts as Assistants Grade II for over 18  years and  odd. Admittedly,  the scale  of  pay  of Assistants Grade  II is  Rs.300-685/-. Consequentially  they are entitled  to be absorbed in the scale of pay attached to the post of Assistants Grade II.      It is  contended by Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners,  that since in the Corporation there was no equivalent  post   of  Sub-Inspectors,   which   posts   the respondents had  held in  the State  Government service, the post in the Corporation carrying the equivalent scale of pay is of Assistant Grade III; necessarily they are to be fitted into the  scale of  pay payable  to Assistants Grade III and that, therefore,  the  High  Court  was  not  right  in  its conclusion that  para 7  of the above circular was arbitrary and in  ordering pay  scale meant  of Assistant Grade II. We find no  force in the contention. Having had the respondents on deputation  and having had them absorbed in their service and the respondents having discharged the duties of the post of Assistant  Grade II  for well  over 18  years and odd, it would be  highly unjust  and arbitrary  to deny  them of the scale of  pay attached  to the  post of  Assistant Grade II. Therefore, the  learned single  judge and the Division Bench were right in giving the direction. We do not find any error of law for interference.      The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.