http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: N.P. VERMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/01/1989

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  939            1989 SCR  (1) 362  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 748 JT 1989 (1)   389  1989 SCALE  (1)234

ACT:     Labour  and Services: Employees of ESSO, Lube India  and Caltex Oil Refining Co.--Amalgamation with HPCL--Fitment  in equivalent  groups--Equation  of different posts  to  be  in accordance with functional equivalence and co-equal  respon- sibility.

HEADNOTE:     ESSO  Standard Refining Company of India Ltd.  and  Lube India Ltd. were acquired by the ESSO (Acquisition of  Under- takings  in  India) Act, 1974 and vested  in  the  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In 1978 Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd., another Government company was amalgamated with  HPCL. Consequent  upon  this integration of  management  staff  of CORIL and HPCL, dispute arose as to their fitment in equiva- lent  groups and fixation of inter se seniority. The  Tandon Committee  appointed to examine the issues  recommended  the application of the principles of (1) functional  similarity, and  (2) co-equal responsibility, for equating positions  in the two companies. The HPCL appointed two functional  direc- tors  for  framing  a rationalisation scheme.  In  the  said scheme  for  the purpose of equation of 10 grades  of  CORIL with 8 grades of HPCL some compression was made in the lower grades, namely, R6-A and R6-B of CORIL were clubbed together and equated with grade A of HPCL. Again, grade R7-A and R7-B were clubbed together and equated with grade B of HPCL.     The  complaint of the petitioners, former  officers  and employees of CORIL, was that the rationalisation scheme  was arbitrary,  in  that the fitment of officers  of  CORIL  and those  of  the ESSO/LIL in the HPCL scales of pay  had  been made without the equation of posts, which was a sine qua non for  integration of officers coming from different  sources, so much so that they had been consistantly fitted in one  or two  grades  lower in HPCL vis-a-vis their  counterparts  in ESSO/LIL  performing similar duties and having  similar  re- sponsibilities  and  status; that in  the  Tandon  Committee report, the post of General Sales Representative of ESSO had been equated with the post of Retail Development  Supervisor of  CORIL on the principle of functional similarity and  co- equal  responsibility; that since these two posts were  con- gruent, they should have been fitted in the same group, that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

is, in Group B of the new HPCL 363 Grade  structure,  whereas in the said scheme  the  post  of General Sales Representative of ESSO (E-6) and that of Depot Superintendent (E-6) have been placed in the Salary Group  B of  HPCL,  while the post of Retail  Development  Supervisor (R6-A) and Depot Superintendent/ Relief Depot Superintendent (R6-B) of CORIL have been placed in Salary Group A of  HPCL. It  is further averred that the post of Depot Super  intend- ent-A (R7-B) and that of Marketing Representative (RT-A)  of CORIL  have been placed in the Salary Group B of  HPCL,  but similar  posts  of ESSO being E-5/E5A have  been  placed  in Salary  Group  C of HPCL; that the compression  should  have been  made at the higher grades namely, grades R-11  and  12 and  the grade of General Manager, and that the  petitioners were  forced  to signify their consent to  the  said  scheme under duress. They, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the  said scheme was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of  the Constitution of India.     For  the  respondents,  it was contended  that  the  two committees  that  were  appointed by the  Chairman  of  HPCL considered the different methods of fitment and  equivalence of  different  pay-scales of ESSO, LIL and  CORIL  with  the pay-scales  of IOC, that the reports submitted by these  two committees  were considered by the HPCL along with the  sub- missions  made  by the officers’ association  through  their representations  before approval, that the terms and  condi- tions  of  the new appointments as per  the  rationalisation scheme  were circulated to each of the CORIL employees  with its  letter dated July 7, 1980 and they having  accepted  in writing the said scheme they were precluded from challenging the same. Allowing the writ petitions,     HELD: 1. While it is not within the domain of the  Court to  make the equation of posts for the purpose  of  integra- tion,  it  is surely the concern of the Court  to  see  that before  the  integration is made and consequent  fitment  of officers  in  different grades/scales of  pay  is  effected, there  must be an equation of different posts in  accordance with  the principle Of functional equivalence  and  co-equal responsibility. [372G-H]     In  the instant case, no evidence or material  has  been placed before the Court on behalf of the HPCL in support  of such  equation  of posts. The  rationalisation  scheme  with regard to the placing of the officers of CORIL in  different IOC/HPCL  grades  of pay, therefore, cannot be  accepted  in full. [372H] 364     2. This is not for the Court to say whether the compres- sion  should  have been made in the lower grades or  in  the higher  grades.  By such compression, grades R6-A  and  R7-A have  been upgraded and the persons placed in  those  grades have  been benefitted. If compression had been made  in  the upper  grades  there would have been much  complications  in view of the functional differences, for the grade of General Manager  cannot be clubbed together with a lower grade.  The contention that the compression should have been made in the higher  grades  of  CORIL cannot,  therefore,  be  accepted. [371F-G]     3. The apprehension of the petitioners that in the event of  their refusal to accept the scheme, their services  will be  terminated cannot be rejected. It may be that there  was no reasonable basis for such apprehension, but the plea that because  of such apprehension the petitioners had  no  other alternative  than  to accept the scheme,  cannot  be  disbe-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

lieved. [371B]     4. Having regard to the interest of several officers  of HPCL  who would be affected if the scheme is set-aside,  and in view of the fact that during the eight years in which the scheme  had been in operation many changes had  taken  place with  regard to the positions and ranks of the  officers  of HPCL  including petitioners, HPCL is directed to  appoint  a committee  consisting of high officials of HPCL and  Central Government,  other than those who were in the previous  com- mittees, within one month for the purpose of considering the question  of  equation of posts on the basis  of  functional similarity, equivalence and co-equal responsibility, and  to give  effect to the same. Promotions and the existing  posi- tions  of the officers of HPCL by virtue of the  implementa- tion  of  the impugned scheme, not to  be  interfered  with. [373D, F-G; 374B]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 331-47 of 1984. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. ) Rajinder Sachar and K.T. Anantharaman for the Petitioners.     Narayan  B.  Shetty, G.B. Pai, S.S.  Shroff,  Mrs.  P.S. Shroff,  Miss  Girja  Krishan,  S.A.  Shroff,  Mrs.  Pallavi Shroff, O.C. Mathur and A.M. Dittia for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 365     DUTT,  J. In these writ petitions, the  petitioners  are former  officers  and employees of the Caltex  Oil  Refining (India)  Ltd.,  which has since been  amalgamated  with  the Hindustan  Petroleum Corporation Limited. The  complaint  of the  petitioners is with regard to the inter se  fitment  of the  officers  and  employees of  the  Caltex  Oil  Refining (India)  Ltd.  and the other two Companies which  have  also been amalgamated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation  Ltd., namely,  ESSO  Standard Refining Company of India  Ltd.  and Lube India Ltd.     In 1974, the Undertakings in India of ESSO Eastern  Inc. that  is, ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd.  (for short  ’ESSO’)  and Lube India Ltd. (for short  ’LIL’)  were acquired by the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in  India) Act, 1974 and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for  short  ’HPCL’),  a Government Company.  In  1977,  the shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and  Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd. were acquired by the  Caltex (Acquisition  of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India)  Ltd. and  the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India)  Ltd.  Act, 1977  and  vested in Caltex Oil Refining (India)  Ltd.  (for short ’CORIL’), a Government Company. On May 5, 1978, by the order  of the Company Law Board, CORIL was amalgamated  with HPCL.     By an order dated June 17, 1978, the Central  Government appointed  a  one-man  Committee of  Mr.  B.B.  Tandon,  IAS (Retd.),  for the purpose of examining the problems  arising out the the integration of the management staff of CORIL and HPCL.  The said Committee was to make  recommendation  inter alia on the following: (i) fitment in equivalent Groups;    (ii) criteria to be adopted for determination of seniori- ty and fixation of inter se seniority; and (iii) placement in appropriate positions.     In  September,  1970, the Tandon Committee  submitted  a report  to  the  Central Government  recommending  that  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

equating positions in the two companies and fitting them  in equivalent  groups, the following two principles  should  be followed: 1. The principle of functional similarity 2. The principle of co-equal responsibility. 366     We  shall  have occasion to refer to the report  of  the Tandon  Committee later in this judgment, for much  reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the report. While  the report  of the Tandon Committee was under the  consideration of  the  Central Government, HPCL appointed  two  functional directors  for the purpose of formulating a  rationalisation scheme.  In this connection, we may refer to a letter  dated July  28, 1979 of the Central Government whereby it  advised HPCL  that the pay-scales and perquisites of management  and employees in the nationalised oil companies should be ratio- nalised  and  fitted into the pay-scales of the  Indian  Oil Corporation,  hereinafter  referred to as  ’IOC’,  a  public sector  Company. Further, it was stated in the  said  letter that the guiding principle to be adopted for the purpose was to find out the equivalence, that is to say, the equality of duty and also the equality of responsibility.     On  July 7, 1980, a circular letter was issued  by  HPCL annexing thereto a rationalisation scheme consisting of  two pans.  In  the first part, the past  service  benefits  that would  be admissible to each employee of CORIL on the  basis of  existing pay-scales and in the second pan, details  were given of the rationalised conditions of service,  payscales, perquisites and retirement benefits. In the circular it  was stated as follows:                         "In  relation  to  your  fitment  or               fixation  of salary in the  proposed  rationa-               lised  scales, should you have  any  grievance               you will be at liberty to represent your               case to a Grievance Committee, which has  been               specially constituted for the purpose.                         I  am  directed to  request  you  to               signify  your acceptance of this offer  within               30  days  from  the date of  receipt  of  this               letter by returning the duplicate copy of this               letter duly signed by you. On receipt of  your               acceptance,   consequent   letters   will   be               issued."     In  the  scheme the pay-scales of ESSO,  LIL  and  CORIL sought  to  be equated with the pay-scales of  HPCL  are  as follows: From ESSO            To  :  HPCL HPCL Salary Group         Salary Group  Salary Scale                                    RS. E-7, E-8                A          750-40-1150-50-1550 E-6                     B          1050-50-1450-60-1750 367 E-5, E-5A                   C     1450-60-1690-65-1950 E-4                         D     1600-65-2120 E - 3                       E     1850-100-2350 E-2                         F     2000-100-2500 O & E-1 & Unclassified      G     2250-100-2750 General Manager             H     2500-100-3000 From  :  LIL        To  :  HPCL   HPCL Salary Group         Salary Group       Salary Scale L-7                     A          750-40-1150-50-1550 L-6                     B          1050-50-1450-60-1750 L-5                     C          1450-60-1690-65-1950 L-4                     D          1600-65-2120 L -3                    E          1850-100-2350

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

L -2                    F          2000-100-2350 L- 1                    G          2250-100-2750 General Manager         H          2500-100-3000 From CORIL         To  :  HPCL   HPCL Salary Group         Salary Group       Salary Scale R-6 A, R-6 B            A          759-40-1150-50-1550 R-7 A, R-7 B            B          1050-50-1450-60-1750 R-8                     C          1450-60-1690-65-1950 R-9                     D          1600-65 -2 120 R- 10                   E          1850-100-2350 R- 11                   F          2000-100-2500 R- 12                   G          2250-100-2750 General Manager         H          2500-100-3000     So far as CORIL is concerned, it appears that it has  10 grades,  while HPCL has 8 Grades. For, the purpose of  equa- tion of these 10 grades of CORIL with 8 Grades of HPCL, some compression has been made in the lower Grades, namely, R6  A and R6 B have been clubbed together and equated with Grade A of  HPCL.  Again  Grades R7 A and R7 B of  CORIL  have  been clubbed  together  and  equated with Grade  B  of  HPCL.  In ESSO, .the Grades E-7 and E-8 have been clubbed together and equated  with Grade A of HPCL. In the Salary Group of  ESSO, the Grades E-5 and E-SA have been shown to be two  different Grades,  but  it is not disputed before us  that  these  two Grades are really one Grade. 368     The  complaint of the petitioners is that in the  matter of  fitment/ integration of the officers of CORIL, that  is, the petitioners, and the officers of ESSO/LIL into  HPCL/IOC Grades, gross disparities have been made to the prejudice of the  officers  of CORIL. It is the case of  the  petitioners that the officers of CORIL have been fitted by HPCL consist- ently  in  one or two Grades lower in HPCL  vis-a-vis  their counterparts  in  ESSO/LIL, performing  similar  duties  and having  similar responsibilities and status. It is urged  on behalf of CORIL that in integrating the officers CORIL  with those  of  ESSO and LIL, HPCL did not make  any  attempt  to equate all the positions held by the officers of CORIL  with those held by the officers of ESSO/LIL. It is submitted that before any fitment can be made into any scale of pay, it  is incumbent  to  make an equation of posts  and  without  such equation the officers of CORIL could not be fitted into  the pay-scales of HPCL along with the officers of ESSO and LIL.     In support of the contention that HPCL has not made  any equation of posts before fitment in HPCL/IOC scales of  pay, Mr.  Sachar,  learned  Counsel appearing on  behalf  of  the petitioners, has placed much reliance on the Tandon  Commit- tee’s Report. In the said report, the post of General  Sales Representative  of  ESSO has been equated with the  post  of Retail  Development Supervisor of CORIL. In the scheme  pre- pared  by HPCL, the post of General Sales Representative  of ESSO (E-6) and that of Depot Superintendent (E-6) have  been placed  in  the Salary Group B of HPCL, while  the  post  of Retail Development Supervisor (R6-A) and Depot  Superintend- ent/Relief  Depot Superintendent (R6-B) of CORIL  have  been placed in the Salary Group A of HPCL. In Tandon  Committee’s Report,  it has been observed that the functional  similari- ties and the responsibility carried by both these  function- aries,  namely, Retail Development Supervisor of  CORIL  and General Sales Representative of ESSO, are alike. Further, it has been observed that since these two posts are  congruent, they can be fitted in the same Group, that is, in Group B of the new HPCL Grade Structure representing IOC scales of pay. The post of Depot Super intendent-A (R7-B) and that of  Mar- keting  Representative (R7-A) of CORIL have been  placed  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

the Salary Group B of HPCL, but similar posts of ESSO  being E-5/E-5A have been placed in the Salary Group C of HPCL.  It is thus complained that the scheme, which has been  prepared by HPCL, is arbitrary and is not based on a proper  equation of posts.     On  the other hand, it is the case of HPCL  that  before the  rationalisation  scheme was finalised.  HPCL  Employees Management 369 Staff  Association  and CORIL  Staff  Association  submitted their  written submissions on December 6, 1977 and July  17, 1977 respectively. These representations were considered  by the Government and after several meetings between the  Chief Executives  of  HPCL and CORIL and the Secretary  and  other senior officers of the Ministry and Bureau of Public  Enter- prise, Government formulated the guidelines for rationalisa- tion and communicated its decision to both CORIL and HPCL by its  letter  dated July 28, 1979. With a view  to  giving  a further  opportunity to the employees of erstwhile ESSO  and CORIL group of officers, the Chairman of HPCL appointed  two Committees to submit their recommendations as to the equiva- lence and fitment of existing officers on the basis of IOC’s scales of pay in accordance with the Government  guidelines. HPCL  considered the reports submitted by the said two  Com- mittees  and also different methods of fitment  and  equiva- lence  of different pay-scales of ESSO, LIL and  CORIL  with the pay-scales of IOC and, keeping in view all these factors including the submissions made by the Officers’  Association through their representations, HPCL approved the proposal of rationalisation  of pay-scales, allowances and  perquisites. Accordingly,  an  offer letter dated July 7,  1980  together with the terms and conditions of new appointment as per  the rationalisation  scheme was sent to each of  the  employees. The further case of HPCL is that without exception every one of  the CORIL Management Employees accepted the fresh  terms offered to them by the said letter dated July 7, 1980.     It is, accordingly, contended by Mr. Pai, learned  Coun- sel appearing on behalf of HPCL, that the impugned rational- isation scheme having been finalised after repeated  consul- tations with the officers of CORIL and their Association and all  the  officers of CORIL having accepted in  writing  the said scheme, they are precluded from challenging the same.     Another  fact,  upon which reliance has been  placed  on behalf of HPCL, is an order of this Court dated December 17, 1979  passed in Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 1979  whereby  HPCL challenged  the judgment of the Delhi High Court quashing  a circular  dated March 8, 1978 issued by the Board of  Direc- tors  of CORIL, on the writ petition filed by the  employees of  CORIL  being Writ Petition No. 426 of  1978.  Two  other appeals being Civil Appeal No. 3212 of 1979 and Civil Appeal No. 35 186 of 1979 were also filed by the officers of  CORIL and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. respectively. The said order is as follows: "The petitioner-Corporation will be at liberty to frame a 370 scheme, if it wishes to do so, in accordance with the  judg- ment  of  the  High Court under appeal.  If  the  scheme  is framed,  it  will not be implemented for a period  of  three weeks from the date of its framing and the respondents  will be at liberty within the period of 3 weeks to apply to  this Court for stay. This order will be without prejudice to  the rights and contentions of the petitioner-Corporation in  the appeal."     Admittedly, no application was made to this Court by the officers  of CORIL praying for stay of  the  rationalisation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

scheme  within a period of three weeks. Relying on the  said order of this Court and also on the fact that no application for  stay was made to this Court within the period  allowed, it  is  submitted  on behalf of HPCL  that  the  petitioners accepted the rationalisation scheme which is also  evidenced by  their written acceptance. If they had any  objection  to the scheme, they would have surely made a representation  to this  Court in the said Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 1979  which was then pending.     In the writ petition, the petitioners have  emphatically denied  the  allegation of HPCL that discussions  were  made with  individuals  and groups of Management Staff  of  CORIL with regard to the rationalisation scheme. As to the accept- ance  of the rationalisation scheme, the case of  the  peti- tioners is that on July 12, 1980 a news item appeared in the Bombay  edition  of the Times of India to  the  effect  that under the scheme of rationalisation, the services of  nearly 950  officers  of HPCL would be terminated,  and  that  such officers would simultaneously be reappointed on the basis of public  sector salary. In view of the said news,  the  peti- tioners filed an application in this Court in the said Civil Appeals  praying for stay or suspension of the operation  of the said offer letter dated July 7, 1980 and for restraining HPCL  from terminating the services of the Management  Staff of  CORIL  pending the disposal of the Civil  Appeals.  HPCL filed an affidavit in opposition to the said application  of the  petitioners  to the effect that no  decision  had  been taken  by HPCL to terminate the services of the officers  of CORIL. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the said applica- tion  recording that in view of the said affidavit of  HPCL, no  order was needed to be passed. Further, the case of  the petitioners  is  that  in spite of the said  order  of  this Court,  the  petitioners still apprehended that  HPCL  would terminate  the services of the petitioners in the  event  of their  refusal to accept the said scheme and, as  such,  the petitioners  under duress were forced to signify their  con- sent to the said scheme. 371     We  have  considered the explanation of  the  petitioner justifying  the  acceptance of the said offer  letter  dated July  7, 1988 and the rationalisation scheme sent  therewith and  also  the  contention of HPCL in that  regard.  In  our opinion,  the  apprehension of the petitioners that  in  the event of their refusal to accept the scheme, their  services will be terminated cannot be rejected on the face of it.  It may be that there was no reasonable basis for such apprehen- sion,  but  the plea that because of such  apprehension  the petitioners  had  no other alternative than  to  accept  the scheme,  cannot be disbelieved. At the same time, we do  not also put any blame on HPCL for implementing the said  scheme which was accepted by the petitioners and other officers  of CORIL. Instead of disposing of these writ petitions on  this technical grounds, we may proceed to consider the respective contentions of the parties on merits.     The main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that in the rationalisation scheme a compression has been made at the  lower  level, namely, Grades R6 A and R6  B  have  been clubbed  together and instead of placing them in the  Salary Group  B of HPCL, as has been done for the equivalent  Grade E-6 of ESSO, they have been placed in the Salary Group A  of HPCL. Similarly, the Grades R7 A and R7 B have been  clubbed together  and  placed in Salary Group B of HPCL,  while  the equivalent Grade of ESSO has been placed in the Salary Group C of HPCL.     The  contention of the petitioners is that the  compres-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

sion  should  have been made at the higher  grades,  namely, Grades R11 and R12 and the Grade of General Manager. This is not  for  this Court to say whether the  compression  should have been made in the lower grades or in the higher  grades. By such compression, Grades R6 A and R7 A have been upgraded and  the persons placed in those Grades have been  benefited by such upgradation. There is much substance in the  conten- tion  made  on behalf of HPCL that if compression  had  been made in the upper grades, there would be much  complications and, moreover, such compression in the upper grades was  not convenient to be made in view of functional differences. The Grade  of General Manager cannot be clubbed together with  a lower  grade. In the circumstances, we are unable to  accept the  contention  of  the petitioners  that  the  compression should have been made in the higher grades of CORIL.     The most important question that requires  consideration is  whether in framing the rationalisation scheme  HPCL  has really  made  the equation of posts of CORIL with  those  of ESSO/LIL. It is the 372 positive  case of the petitioners that no such equation  has been made and the fitment of the officers of CORIL and those of  ESSO/LIL  in the IOC/HPCL scales of pay have  been  made without  the equation of posts, which is a sine qua non  for integration  of officers coming from different sources.  The petitioners  have mainly relied upon the  recommendation  of the  Tandon Committee that General Sales  Representative  of ESSO  has been equated with the post of  Retail  Development Supervisor  of  CORIL. In the scheme prepared by  HPCL,  the post  of  General Sales Representative of ESSO and  that  of Depot Superintendent have been placed in the Salary Group  B of HPCL, while the post of Retail Development Supervisor and Depot  Superintendent/Relief Depot Superintendent  of  CORIL have been placed in the Salary Group A of HPCL.     As against this, the contention of HPCL is that the  two Committees  that  were  appointed by the  Chairman  of  HPCL considered the different methods of fitment and  equivalence of  different  pay-scales of ESSO, LIL and  CORIL  with  the pay-scales  of IOC. Except the bare allegation, no  material has  been produced before us on behalf of HPCL to show  that the said Committees had, as a matter of fact, considered the question of equation of posts on the basis of the  principle as  laid down by the Central Government while referring  the matter to the Tandon Committee, namely, functional similari- ty  and co-equal responsibility. In the affidavits filed  on behalf  of HPCL, no particulars have been given with  regard to the functional equivalence or otherwise of the  different grades of these officers of CORIL, ESSO and LIL. It is  also not stated what happened to the consideration by the Govern- ment of the Tandon Committee’s report. There can be no doubt that  the Government is not bound to accept the  recommenda- tion  of  the Tandon Committee but, at the  same  time,  the equation  of posts has to be made on the principle of  func- tional equivalence and co-equal responsibility. As no  mate- rials  have been produced in that regard on behalf of  HPCL, it is difficult for us to hold that the different grades  of posts  have  been compared before placing  the  officers  of these  companies in the IOC/HPCL scales of pay. While it  is not  within the domain of the Court to make the equation  of posts  for  the  purpose of integration, it  is  surely  the concern  of the Court to see that before the integration  is made  and  consequent  fitment  of  officers  in   different grades/scales of pay is effected, there must be an  equation of  different posts in accordance with the principle  stated above.  As  there is no evidence or material in  support  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

such  equation of posts, it is difficult to accept  the  ra- tionalisation  scheme  with  regard to the  placing  of  the officers of CORIL in different IOC/HPCL grades of pay. 373     The petitioners approached the Grievance Committee,  but the  Grievance Committee did not consider the objections  of the petitioners to the said scheme. In our opinion, there is much substance in the contention made on behalf of HPCL that it  was not the business of the Grievance Committee to  con- sider  the  propriety or otherwise  of  the  rationalisation scheme, but if any officer has not been placed in the proper grade, the Grievance Committee may place such officer in the proper grade in accordance with the rationalisation scheme.     Be  that as it may, in the view which we  take,  namely, that  there has been no equation of posts, the  rationalisa- tion  scheme cannot be accepted in full. The prayer  of  the petitioners  in the writ petition is for a declaration  that the  said scheme is violative of Articles 14 and 16  of  the Constitution of India and for a writ, order or direction  in the nature of mandamus directing HPCL to remove the discrim- ination  against the petitioners in regard to  the  impugned rationalisation scheme.     The  question is whether we should set aside the  scheme after  the  lapse of about eight years. During  these  eight years,  by  virtue  of implementation of  the  scheme,  many changes  have taken place with regard to the  positions  and ranks of the officers of HPCL including the petitioners  and to  set  aside the whole scheme at this stage  would  surely affect the service structure of HPCL. We are also not obliv- ious of the order of this Court dated July 20, 1984  record- ing the statement made in the affidavit of HPCL that if this Court  would ultimately decide the matter in favour  of  the petitioners,  HPCL  would accord to them  all  the  benefits which  they  would be entitled to. That  is  an  undertaking given  by HPCL, but we should also look to the  interest  of several  officers  of  HPCL who would be  affected,  if  the scheme is set aside.     In the circumstances, without setting aside the  scheme, we  direct  HPCL to appoint a Committee consisting  of  high officials  of HPCL and Central Government, other than  those who  were in the previous Committees, within one month  from date for the purpose of considering the question of equation of posts on the basis of functional similarity,  equivalence and co-equal responsibility, that is to say, whether on that basis  Grades  R6  A and R6 B of CORIL,  either  jointly  or separately,  can be equated with the Grade E-6 of ESSO  and, similarly, Grades R7 A and R7 B of CORIL, either jointly  or separately,  can be equated with Grade E-5/E-5A of ESSO.  In considering the question of equation of posts, the  respond- ents  shall also take into its consideration the  report  of the Tandon Committee. Such consideration shall be 374 made within six months from today. If such equation is found to  be in favour of the petitioners, HPCL shall give  effect to the same. But, in view of the lapse of about eight  years for which the petitioners are also to some extent  responsi- ble, the date or dates from which the consequential  benefit will be given effect to and also the quantum of such benefit will be such as may be deemed fit and proper by the respond- ents,  having  regard to the financial involvement  and  the changes that have taken place. We make it clear that, in  no event, promotions and the existing positions of the officers of  HPCL,  by virtue of the implementation of  the  impugned scheme, will be interfered with.     The writ petitions are disposed of as above. There  will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

be no order as to costs. P.S.S                                   Petitions allowed. 375