Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 664 (AP)

K. Krishna Mohan Rao v. Sunil Arora

2003-05-01

BILAL NAZKI, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2003
G. YETHIRAJULU. , J, J. ( 1 ) THIS contempt case is filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6760 of 2001 and the respondents in Writ Appeal No. 1433 of 2001. ( 2 ) DURING the years 1969 to 1971 the petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants and posted to work in the Support Sections of the Engineering Department of Indian Airlines. As per the second report of the Organisation and the Systems Group (OSG) dated 30-1-1975 the cadres of Technical Assistants, Senior Technical Assistants and Assistant Technical Officers were introduced. On 3-2-1976 the Director of Engineering accepted the said OSG recommendations by prescribing qualifications for the persons eligible to be appointed for those posts. The writ petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants in the Support Sections of the Engineering Department after passing the required qualifying test, in pursuance of a notification dated 2-4-1976 issued by the then Chief Engineering Manager by prescribing the qualifications, experience and job requirements for the said posts. As per the said notification, the minimum educational qualification was prescribed as SSC/sslc/metriculation and four (04) years of satisfactory service in Indian Airlines out of which two years in Support Sections. After subjecting the writ petitioners to written and oral tests the management appointed them as Technical Assistants. Since the petitioners were not treated as technical cadre employees by extending the attendant benefits, the petitioners filed W. P. No. 8090 of 1992 praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the management to declare them as Technical Assistants in the technical cadre and also to direct the respondents therein to treat them as Technical Assistants in technical cadre with all attendant service benefits, including time-bound promotions extended to technical cadre employees. This High Court through its judgment dated 16-11-1999 disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as Technical Assistants as they were appointed to those posts on 16-5-1978 itself and the respondents shall have to consider their case for time-bound promotions also. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said writ petition, the management issued proceedings on 28-4-1995 promoting the writ petitioners as Senior Technical Assistants benefiting all the petitioners with one increment and it was approved and confirmed by the competent authority on 29-11-1995. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said writ petition, the management issued proceedings on 28-4-1995 promoting the writ petitioners as Senior Technical Assistants benefiting all the petitioners with one increment and it was approved and confirmed by the competent authority on 29-11-1995. Subsequently the petitioners filed C. C. No. 697 of 2000 complaining that the management committed a Contempt of Court by failing to implement the judgment of this High Court dated 16-11-1999 in W. P. No. 8090 of 1992 in true letter and spirit. The contempt case was disposed of by this Court on 19-6-2000 by observing as follows:. . . Suffice it to notice that this Court has not issued any directions, directing the respondents to promote any particular petitioner into any particular identified post. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for at least one time promotion. The process appears to have been initiated by the respondents. In the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to further probe into the matter and to find as to any of the directions of this Court have been violated. If the decision making process is vitiated adversely effecting the interest of any of the petitioners, it shall be open to them to avail the remedy that may be available to them in law. Suffice it to hold that the respondents have not committed any deliberate act or violation of the orders passed by this Court. I do not find any merit in this contempt case and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioners appeared to have made representations to the respondents requesting to extend all attendant benefits attached to the posts of technical cadre employees and to give time-bound promotions in technical cadre as recommended in the OSG report. The petitioners, on the ground that their request was not considered by the management, filed W. P. No. 6760 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 8090 of 1992 dated 16-11-1999 and to grant attendant service benefits, including Production Linked Incentive (PLI), Surveillance Allowance, Technical Pay etc. , which are attached to the posts of technical cadre employees. , which are attached to the posts of technical cadre employees. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 3-9-2001 holding as follows: There shall be a direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay all the attendant benefits attached to the post of technical cadre employees within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. ( 5 ) THE management being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge filed W. A. No. 1433 of 2001 before this Court. The writ appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 19-6-2002 holding thus: The direction issued by the learned single Judge to the management to pay all attendant benefits to the Senior Technical Assistants in which they are working on par with other technical cadre employees shall stand. The appellants are given six weeks time to comply with the direction. ( 6 ) THE writ petitioners filed the present contempt case complaining that the directions issued by this Court in W. A. No. 1433 of 2001 were not complied with intentionally and deliberately. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that since the petitioners were already given promotions, they are not particular about the relief regarding the promotions. It is also not disputed by the petitioners about their regular emoluments i. e. , pay and allowances as per rules. Their main grievance is regarding the non-payment of Production Linked Incentive (PLI), Surveillance Allowance, and Technical Pay etc. , which are being paid to some of the technical cadre employees. ( 8 ) THE respondents in the contempt case are contending that the petitioners are being paid all allowances and incentives applicable to their posts and also the promotional benefits as per the agreements entered into between the Union representing the cadre from time to time without any discrimination. The respondents further submitted that there was no disobedience of the order of the High Court, especially willful or intentional disobedience of the same. The respondents further submitted that there was no disobedience of the order of the High Court, especially willful or intentional disobedience of the same. ( 9 ) IN the light of the contentions raised by the respective parties, the point for consideration is: Whether there was willful and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court in W. A. No. 1433 of 2001 preferred against the order in W. P. No. 6760 of 2001 of this Court and whether the respondents are liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act? Point: ( 10 ) THE petitioners worked as Office Assistants in the Administrative Department of the Indian Airlines. In the year 1978 the management appointed them as Technical Assistants in pursuance of the recommendations of the OSG after verification of the qualifications, conducting tests by following the procedure prescribed for the appointments. The writ petitioners were promoted as Senior Technical Assistants on 28-4-1995. Subsequent promotions are also being taken up depending upon the vacancy position and it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents did not take up such exercise in pursuance of the judgment of this Court. ( 11 ) IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the productivity linked incentive is paid to the non-technical cadre employees on the criteria of average number of passengers carried per day and the criteria of on time performance whereas the criteria for technical cadre employees i. e. , Aircraft Engineers, Aircraft Technicians, Motor Transport Technicians, Plant Technicians, Carpenters, Plumbers and Painters, Overseer (Civil) and Technical Officers i. e. , Engineers is 1) average annual flying hours, 2) technical dispatch regularity, and 3) Aircraft in major maintenance. It is also conceded by the petitioners that the Technical Officers who are presently re-designated as Engineers (Support Services) working in Support Sections and Supervising the work of the petitioners are also being paid PLI under the above criteria. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Motor Transport Technicians, Plant Technicians, Plumbers, Painters, Carpenters and Overseer (Civil) are not connected with Aircraft maintenance, but they are being paid PLI under the above criteria meant for technical staff, since they are treated as technical cadre employees. ( 12 ) THOUGH the petitioners are non-technical cadre employees, they are demanding the attendant benefits of technical cadre employees. ( 12 ) THOUGH the petitioners are non-technical cadre employees, they are demanding the attendant benefits of technical cadre employees. The petitioners claim that though they are working as Technical Assistants attending to the work connected with the Aircraft maintenance/repair, they are not being paid PLI as applicable to technical cadre employees, despite this court declaring them as technical cadre employees and directed to pay the attendant benefits on par with other technical cadre employees. Since the respondents are paying PLI or other allowances on the basis of the agreement arrived at with the respective Unions, the petitioners are not entitled to any such allowances more than that was agreed to be paid and the petitioners failed to bring the said fact to the notice of the Court in the writ petition and tried to impress upon the Court that they are also Technical Assistants belonging to technical cadres. In the first writ petition i. e. , W. P. No. 8090 of 1992 the learned single Judge was careful enough in not using the wording "technical cadre" whereas the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 6760 of 2001 observed that the petitioners are entitled to the attendant benefits that are being paid to the employees of "technical cadre" on the basis of which, the petitioners are claiming that they are also entitled for the attendant benefits. It is not the case of the petitioners that the agreements entered into by the respective Unions are not binding on them and as the respondents are extending the attendant benefits, as per the agreements, the petitioners cannot say that the respondents failed to pay the attendant benefits to them. We therefore do not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying the directions of this Court. ( 13 ) THE respondents are contending that the petitioners have been willfully misleading this Court by presenting untrue and distorted version with regard to payment of allowances. The productivity linked incentives or allowances are paid to the employees mainly depending upon the settlements/agreements arrived at with the representative recognized Union/association. As far as petitioners are concerned, they are covered by the Wage Settlement dated 9-2-2001, as also the productivity linked incentive dated 30-3-1996 signed with the Air Corporations Employees Union (ACEU ). The productivity linked incentives or allowances are paid to the employees mainly depending upon the settlements/agreements arrived at with the representative recognized Union/association. As far as petitioners are concerned, they are covered by the Wage Settlement dated 9-2-2001, as also the productivity linked incentive dated 30-3-1996 signed with the Air Corporations Employees Union (ACEU ). The petitioners are being paid all allowances and incentives applicable to their post and also the promotional benefits as per various agreements entered into with the union representing their cadre from time to time. The petitioners are also getting the benefit of promotion to the posts of Assistant Manager (Engineering Support) and Senior Technical Superintendents w. e. f. 1-9-1995 by virtue of the agreement/understanding between the management and the representative of the Union. The Union and the management have signed in their settlement on 9-2-2001, whereby further provision was made for the career progression of various cadres represented by ACEU, including the petitioners. Six out of nine available petitioners who are in service were issued call letters on 10-6-2002 to appear for the written tests for the posts of Assistant Manager (ES) on 30-6-2002 and the petitioners 2 and 5 have absented themselves while four of the petitioners appeared and qualified for the same. Interview for those qualified in the written test was held on 18-10-2002. Subsequent to the disposal of Writ Petition No. 31690 of 1997 on 16-11-1999, the petitioners have derived the promotional benefits arising out of the decision of the management in creating the post of Assistant Manager (ES) and Deputy Manager (ES) as career progression for the cadre of Senior Technical Superintendents. Subsequent to the disposal of the above writ petition on 16-1-1999, one of the petitioners was appointed as Assistant Manager (ES) on 2-6-2000. Therefore, the petitioners cannot take two different stands simultaneously, on the one hand demanding to appoint any one of them to the post of Assistant Manager (ES), which is a declared non-technical category post, and on the other hand, demanding to equate themselves with Aircraft Technicians etc. , who form a totally distinct and different group by virtue of their nature of jobs viz. , maintenance and repair of the Aircraft etc. , and are represented by a trade-based union called, Indian Aircraft Technicians Association. , who form a totally distinct and different group by virtue of their nature of jobs viz. , maintenance and repair of the Aircraft etc. , and are represented by a trade-based union called, Indian Aircraft Technicians Association. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the figures which have been projected in the memo filed before this Court are neither static and uniform to all categories, nor to all employees in the same category and hence, they cannot be taken as correct and acceptable figures to make any comparison or calculation of the alleged benefits. ( 14 ) THE petitioners did not produce a copy of the wage settlement dated 9-2-2001 between the Union of the petitioners and the management to give a clear picture as to what were the benefits attached to the respective posts that were agreed to be paid through the said settlement. It is not their case that they are entitled to the benefits extended to the Aircraft Technicians by virtue to the agreement between the respondents and the Indian Aircraft Technicians Association. It is also not disputed by the petitioners that they cannot equate themselves with Aircraft Technicians who are totally distinct and different group by virtue of their nature of job viz. , maintenance and repair of the Aircraft etc. ( 15 ) AFTER carefully going through the material placed before this Court and after considering the steps that are being taken by the management in pursuance of the judgments of this Court, we do not find any willful or intentional disobedience of the orders of this Court. The petitioners failed to place sufficient material in support of their plea that the respondents committed willful disobedience of the orders by not implementing the directions given in the judgment. We do not find any merits in the petition. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.