The candidate whose name appeared at serial No.2 in the merit list, did number join though was offered the ap pointment.
The respondent challenged the said judgment by filing an intra companyrt appeal.
The said appeal has been allowed, issuing direction to the present appellants to grant the pay scale to the respondent as was being paid to Shri B.V. Prabhakar at the Rourkela Steel Plant in the executive cadre and that too from the date of his initial appointment.
The relief sought companyld number be granted to him and there was numberreason to accept the writ petition.
Thus, the respondent was number dealt with any discrimination as there was numberpost in Durgapur Steel Plant of Speech Therapist Audiologist in executive cadre.
The arrears also were to be paid within six weeks.
An interview was held on 17.6.1996 and the respondents name found place at serial number4 in the merit list.
The said representation stood rejected vide order dated 12/14.10.2004 with observation that number executive post companyld number be upgraded to the executive cadre as per the policy of the companypany.
Hence, this appeal.
As numbere of the first three candidates joined, the appointment was offered to the respondent vide letter dated 17.6.1996.
On refusal to join by the third candidate, the post was offered to the respondent and he accepted and joined the post without protest in S 6 grade on 17.6.1996 on the terms and companyditions incorporated in his appointment letter.
The last part of his representation dated 1.9.2004 reads as under I may kindly be placed selected in Executive cadre waiving some criteria applicable to eligible candidate for Executive posts, if numberhing can be done to place me initially from the date of my joining in DSP in Executive cadre.
Appellants companytested the case pointing out that it was number permissible under the statutory rules policy of the companypany to meet the demand of the respondent employee.
The respondent approached the High Court by filing the writ petition, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs A writ of and or in the nature of Mandamus companymanding the respondents, their men, agents and or assigns to rescind and or cancel the memos bearing numberPL 1/1 101 /6/07/Theraphy/004/2217 dated 1.10.2004, and DMHS Misc reply October dated 12/14.10.2004, issued by the Manager Personnel recruitment , SAIL, DSP and the Director M HS , Durgapur Steel Plant respectively, forthwith A writ of and or in the nature of Mandamus companymanding the respondents, each one of them, their servants, agents and or assigns to fix up the scale of pay of the petitioner companymensurate to the post of E 1 as it is prevailing in other units of SAIL, forthwith A writ of and or in the nature of Mandamus companymanding the respondents, each one of their agents and or assigns number to withhold scale of pay for the post of Speech Therapist Audiologist companymensurate to the post of E 1 grade A writ of and or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, each one of them, their agents and or assigns to fix up the scale of pay of the petitioner companymensurate to the post of E 1 grade and to release all arrear salary and companysequential benefits since joining with the admissible rate of interest thereto, forthwith A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, each one of them, their agents and or assigns to treat the post of the petitioner as Executive post E 1 grade forthwith A writ of and or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the entire records of the case forming the basis of number providing and or number fixation of the pay scale for the post of Speech Therapist Audiologist companymensurate to the post of E 1 grade to this Honble Court and to certify them and on being so certified, quash the same so that companyscionable justice may be administered to the parties.
The respondent accepted the appointment in Grade S 6 on the terms and companyditions incorporated in his appointment letter without any protest.
Respondent made representation dated 1.9.2004 number claiming parity in pay but to change the cadre and upgrade his post, accord relaxation in eligibility and give him the pay scale of the post of E 1 grade from the date of his joining the service.
After serving for a few years, respondent started claiming parity with one Shri B.V. Prabhakar, employed at Rourkela Steel Plant, a different unit of the same companypany who was holding the post of E 1 grade in executive cadre though designated as Speech Therapist Audiologist.
The third candidate in panel claimed for upgrading the post which was number acceptable to the companypany for the reason that the post had been advertised with certain grade and pay scale and it was number possible for the unit to upgrade the same.
The post was offered to Shri Mithlesh Kumar, the next candidate in the panel, but he did number turn up to join.
The relief sought by the respondent is the same, which had, in fact been asked by two candidates in the merit list, above the respondent.
If such a demand was acceptable to the appel lants they companyld have gotten a more meritorious candidate than re spondent.
Grant of the relief sought by the respondent is violative of equality clause companytained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India qua other candidates in the panel above the respondent who did number join for number granting the same relief though it had been sought at least by two of them at the initial state of recruitment.
Respondent in his representation made to the Authorities, claimed the change of cadre and upgradation of his post.
More so, there was numberenabling provision for grant of relaxation to the eligibility criteria.
The Division Bench was swayed by an impression that it was number permissible for the employer Company to have different pay scales in two different units existing at different locations, though such a companyrse is always permissible for the management.
The respondent applied for the post in grade S 6 as he was number eligible for the post of grade E 1 wanting the qualification of a Doctor.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
Such a relief companyld number be granted to him.
The respondent joined the said post without any protest.
The respondent applied in response to the said advertisement.
The said representation stood rejected vide order dated 12/14.10.2004 by the Authorities, observing that upgradation of his post to executive cadre was number permissible under the policy of the companypany, and as the respondent was working in number executive cadre, he companyld number claim parity with an employee in another unit of the companypany on a post of executive cadre.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in FMA No.782 of 2007 MAT No.4487 of 2005 and CAN No.4852 of 2006 by which the Division Bench has allowed the appeal of the respondent against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2539 W of 2005 by which the learned Single Judge had rejected the claim of the respondent for parity in pay and issuance of direction to upgrade the post held by him.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant No.2 issued an advertisement in The Statesman newspaper dated 22.9.1993 inviting applications for the post of Speech Therapist Audiologist at the Durgapur Steel Plant in S 6 grade in Medical and Health Services.
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court claiming the same relief, however, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 16.9.2005.
