Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1445 (RAJ)

Shambhu Dutt Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-21

GOVIND MATHUR

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are employees of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd (SPINFED). Their services are governed and regulated by the Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Employees Service Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules of 1994' hereinafter). As per Rule 6.12 (Chapter IV) of the Rules of 1994, an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course, unless it is withheld by the authority empowered to withhold such increment under Conduct and Discipline Rules. The Rule aforesaid further provides that any order withholding an increment shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. 2. The Spinfed being under losses and also being undergoing modernisation and rehabilization of the project entered into an agreement with the employees on 14.9.2004 for not granting annual grade increments for a term of five years and the term aforesaid expired on 30.11.2009. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite expiry of the term of five years, the respondent-employer is not releasing annual grade increments. 4. The stand of the respondent is that the Spinfed is facing huge losses and therefore, the State Government has decided not to release annual grade increments till the Company acquires profit vide Decision No.90/09 dated 6.10.2009. 5. In rejoinder, the submission of petitioners is that there are certain other Companies also in the Cooperative sector which are facing losses, but increments have already been granted to their employees. It is also submitted that the employees of the Spinfed at their own did not claim increments for five years and now the respondents without having any authority of law have discontinued the same for an indefinite period. The act of the respondents as per the petitioners is highly unjust and arbitrary and also without jurisdiction. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners are governed by the Rules of 1994. Rule 6.12 and 6.13, which are relevant for the present controversy reads as follows:- "6.12 - Increments to be drawn as a matter of course unless withheld:- An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld by the authority empowered to withhold such increment under Conduct and Discipline Rules. Rule 6.12 and 6.13, which are relevant for the present controversy reads as follows:- "6.12 - Increments to be drawn as a matter of course unless withheld:- An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld by the authority empowered to withhold such increment under Conduct and Discipline Rules. Any order withholding an increment shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. 6.13 - Drawal of increment from first of the month.- The increment of employees may be admitted from the first of the month in which it would fall due under the operation of the normal rules and orders regulating increments." 8. In view of the provisions aforesaid, the employees of the respondents are entitled to receive annual grade increments. 9. True it is, the petitioners and the employer arrived at a memorandum of understanding in the year 2004 for not releasing annual grade increments for a term of five years, but that term has already expired in the year 2009 itself, as such, subsequent thereto it is legal responsibility and liability of the employer to release annual grade increments to its employees including the petitioners as per the provisions quoted above. The decision of the State Government cannot be made applicable upon the Spinfed. The Spinfed in pursuant to the decision of the State Government, which is as a matter of fact an stranger, so far as service conditions of the petitioners is concern, erroneously denying annual grade increments to its employees. 10. The petition for writ, thus, is allowed. The respondent Spinfed is directed to allow annual grade increments to the petitioners and also the arrear accrued because of non-granting of annual grade increments irrespective of the Cabinet decision No.90/09 dated 6.10.2009. The increments in the terms above are required to be given from the date the memorandum of understanding dated 14.9.2004 expired.Petition allowed. *******