Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1486 (CAL)

Shyamal Kumar Bose v. Senior Regional Manager

2011-12-07

M.K.SINHA, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT: PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. THE appellants herein were initially employed in the Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal and thereafter sent on deputation to Food Corporation of India in the year 1966 pursuant to an agreement executed between Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as FCI) and State of West Bengal dated 26.11.1966. THE relevant extracts from the aforesaid agreement dated 26th November, 1966 are set out hereunder :- -a) To facilities smooth transfer of functions under this arrangement by the State Government to the Corporation, the latter shall take over all the officers and the staff of the State Govt. actually engaged on these functions at present under the State Government, unless for special reasons any of such officers and staff are not made available by the government for being to taken over. THE corporation shall have the right to review its staffing pattern in the light of its experience and absorb such of the officers and staff as were taken over by it initially and as may be found suitable for such absorption by a committee consisting of officers of the corporation and the State Government. b) Till such time as the employees of the State Government taken over by the corporation are absorbed by the corporation they will be on deputation. Such officers and staff on deputation shall continue to be governed by the same pay and scales of pay as under the State Government. THE other terms and conditions of their deputation will be settled by mutual consultation between the Corporation and the State Government which in any case shall not be less favourable then what is admissible under the West Bengal Government rules. THE Corporation shall bear leave salary and pensionary contribution for the staff that would be on deputation to it. c) In respect of officers and staff that will be eventually absorbed by the Corporation in its service the Corporation shall make regulation under the Food Corporation Act in such manner as the confirm to as far as possible to the conditions of service that governed such officers and staff at present under the Government. 2. THE Corporation shall also relax if necessary its rules of recruitment in order to enable it to absorb the officers and staff that will be eventually absorbed in its service. On 19th March, 1984 FCI issued a circular being circular no. 2. THE Corporation shall also relax if necessary its rules of recruitment in order to enable it to absorb the officers and staff that will be eventually absorbed in its service. On 19th March, 1984 FCI issued a circular being circular no. 21 of 1984 regarding absorption of West Bengal State Government deputationists in the regular service of the Food Corporation of India. THE appellants herein opted for absorption in FCI by filing prescribed option forms and eventually they were absorbed in FCI with effect from 1st July, 1984 pursuant to the office orders issued from time to time from 1985 onwards. THE said appellants also specifically claimed pay scale of Rs. 380-640 in the option form since according to the appellants aforesaid scale of pay would conform to their conditions of service as far as possible. The respondent FCI authorities however, did not pay any heed to the aforesaid demand of the appellants regarding pay scale of Rs. 380-640 which was specifically mentioned in the option form by the said appellants. The appellants herein therefore, filed writ petition and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal. 3. THE learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the circular no. 21 of 1984 issued by the FCI regarding absorption of the West Bengal State Government deputationists in the regular service of the FCI did not authorise the FCI authorities to withdraw any existing benefits of the depuationists but the FCI authorities by not granting the pay scale of Rs. 380-640 curtailed the existing benefits of the said deputationists namely, the appellants herein. 4. MR. L. K. Gupta, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the said appellants were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption and the FCI authorities did not mention comparable/equivalent pay scale in FCI in Annexure-II of the said circular no. 21 of 1984 as a result whereof each one of the appellants had to claim in the option form that the scale of pay of Rs. 380- 640 should be assigned to the appellants. The scale of pay of Rs. 290-485 was assigned to the employees who were enjoying the scale of pay of Rs. 300-685 in the State Government before absorption. The appellants were admittedly enjoying the higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 380- 640 should be assigned to the appellants. The scale of pay of Rs. 290-485 was assigned to the employees who were enjoying the scale of pay of Rs. 300-685 in the State Government before absorption. The appellants were admittedly enjoying the higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 340-750 in the West Bengal Government before absorption in FCI and therefore, the said appellants claimed corresponding equivalent scale of pay of Rs. 380-640 after absorption in FCI. The learned counsel of the appellants specifically submitted that the said appellants were placed in a higher scale during deputation and therefore, the FCI authorities cannot assign the lower scale of pay to the appellants after absorption. Mr. Gupta submitted that the higher scale of pay gives higher status to an employee in the organisation. 5. THE learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the placement of the appellants in a lower scale would affect their status in the organisation which is not permissible in the eye of law. THE learned senior counsel of the appellants however, admitted that the pay protection has been given to the said appellants as a result whereof the said appellants did not suffer any financial loss after absorption in FCI. 6. MR. Gupta, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that protection of pay in a lower scale is not permissible since the same would affect the status of the employees who were entitled to enjoy the benefit of higher scale of pay. Referring to Clause 9 ( c ) of the agreement dated 26th November, 1966, the learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that FCI is to make regulations in respect of the officers and staff who will be absorbed by the corporation in such a manner so that the same conform to the conditions of service that governed the said officers and staff under the State Government as far as possible. Mr. Gupta also submitted that Clause 9 ( c ) of the agreement protects the rights of a deputationist on absorption so that his conditions of service are not adversely affected. Mr. Gupta further submitted that Clause 9 ( c ) of the agreement becomes relevant for the purpose of absorption of State Government deputationists in the regular service of the FCI. Mr. Gupta submitted that the appellants herein were undisputedly enjoying the scale of Rs. Mr. Gupta further submitted that Clause 9 ( c ) of the agreement becomes relevant for the purpose of absorption of State Government deputationists in the regular service of the FCI. Mr. Gupta submitted that the appellants herein were undisputedly enjoying the scale of Rs. 340-750 in the West Bengal State Government before absorption and in the Annexure-II to the circular no. 21 of 1984 comparable/equivalent pay scale in FCI after absorption of the deputationists has not been mentioned. 7. ACCORDING to Mr. Gupta, aforesaid omission is contrary to provisions of Clause 9 ( c ) of the agreement. Mr. Gupta also submitted that in the circular no. 21 of 1984 FCI authorities did not mention that the existing benefits of higher scale of pay in respect of the deputationists would be withdrawn after absorption. The learned senior counsel of the appellants specifically urged before this court that an employer cannot take away the right of an employee to enjoy the benefit of proper scale of pay even after absorption in regular service. 8. MR. Gupta submitted that the appellants herein never opted for the lower pay scale and the higher pay scale was claimed in the option form in order to resolve the anomalies since the corresponding pay scale of the appellants after absorption was not mentioned in the Annexure-II to the circular no. 21 of 1984. The learned counsel of the FCI authorities however, submitted that the corresponding scale of pay in respect of the appellants have been clearly mentioned in Annexure-II in the option form. MR. Kamal Kr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel of the FCI specifically submitted that the appellants herein were Assistant Grade-III (hereinafter referred to as A. G. -III) employees and therefore, they cannot be fitted in the pay scale assigned to the Assistant Grade-II employees. The learned counsel of the FCI authorities further submitted that the deputationists were not entitled to incorporate any additional term in the option form other than the terms that had been mentioned by the FCI authorities as condition for absorption. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that the deputationists like the appellants herein were supposed to accept the conditions for absorption mentioned in the option form or go back to their parent department in the State Government. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that the deputationists like the appellants herein were supposed to accept the conditions for absorption mentioned in the option form or go back to their parent department in the State Government. It has been submitted on behalf of the FCI authorities that the office orders for absorption were issued in the year 1985 and the appellants were absorbed with effect from 1.7.1984 in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 290-485 as per Annexure-II of circular no. 21 of 1984. The learned counsel of the FCI authorities submitted that the appellants herein enjoyed the aforesaid pay scale after their absorption in the service of the FCI and some of the appellants have retired from service between 2000-2004. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel of the FCI further submitted that several appellants have also taken voluntary retirement in the year 2004. The learned counsel of the respondent FCI authorities specifically submitted before this court that the appellants herein filed the writ petition in the year 2005 challenging their order of absorption which was passed in the year 1985. The said learned counsel of the FCI authorities further submitted that this court should appreciate the fact that the appellants herein filed the writ petition only after their retirement from the service, when master and servant relationship between the appellants and the respondent FCI authorities seized to exist. 9. THE learned counsel of the FCI specifically urged before this court that the appellants herein, after long lapse of almost 20 years, cannot raise any dispute with regard to the pay scale, which was fixed by the respondent FCI authorities at the time of their absorption after submission of the prescribed option form. THE learned counsel of the FCI authorities submitted that on the ground of delay alone, no relief should be granted to the appellants herein. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel of the respondent FCI further submitted that pay protection has been duly granted to the appellants herein and the said appellants after absorption did not suffer any financial loss. Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the said appellants are entitled to enjoy the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 for serving in a post for more than 18 years. Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the said appellants are entitled to enjoy the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 for serving in a post for more than 18 years. THE deputationists who were working as A. G. - II were granted the benefit of pay scale of A. G. -II at the time of absorption and thereafter FCI authorities also granted the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 to the said Assistant Grade employees for working for more than 18 years as A. G. - II and granted next higher scale of pay which would appear from the fact that the scale of pay for A. G. - II in FCI is Rs. 380-640 and after granting the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 next higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 425-700 was granted to the said A. G. - II employees by FCI in compliance with the specific direction passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being C. O. No. 21 (W) of 1989 (F.C.I. Deputationist Association and Ors. Vs. F.C.I. and Ors.) which was not upset by the Division Bench of this Court or the Supreme Court. 10. UNDISPUTEDLY, the appellants herein were granted pay scale of Rs. 290-485 after absorption in FCI. On examination of the Annexure-II of Circular No. 21 of 1984 we find that the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 290-485 was granted in FCI to those employees who enjoyed the scale of pay of Rs. 300-685 in the West Bengal State Government. The appellants herein enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption in FCI and therefore, the FCI authorities cannot assign the pay scale of Rs. 290-485 to the appellants herein after absorption in FCI since the aforesaid pay scale can be granted only in respect of the employees who enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 in the West Bengal State Government. In Annexure-II of circular no. 21 of 1984 corresponding scale of pay equivalent to the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 has not been mentioned. The appellants herein enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption in FCI and therefore, cannot be treated at par with the employees who enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 before absorption. The appellants herein are certainly entitled to enjoy the higher pay scale than the employees who were in the pay scale of Rs. The appellants herein enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption in FCI and therefore, cannot be treated at par with the employees who enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 before absorption. The appellants herein are certainly entitled to enjoy the higher pay scale than the employees who were in the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 in West Bengal State Government before absorption and after absorption in FCI assigned the pay scale of Rs. 290-485. The next higher pay scale of the pay scale of Rs. 290-485 in the Annexure-II is Rs. 380-640 and therefore, the appellants herein claimed the pay scale of Rs. 380-640 being the next higher pay scale of Rs. 290-485 in Annexure-II of the circular no. 21 of 1984. The pay scale granted to the appellants before absorption was admittedly higher than the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 since the said appellants were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption. The aforesaid benefit of higher scale of pay granted to the appellants herein cannot be taken away while assigning corresponding scale of pay after absorption in FCI. It has been submitted on behalf of the FCI authorities that the office orders for absorption were issued in the year 1985 and the appellants were absorbed with effect from 1.7.1984 in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 290-485 as per Annexure-II of circular no. 21 of 1984. The learned counsel of the FCI authorities submitted that the appellants herein enjoyed the aforesaid pay scale after their absorption in the service of the FCI and some of the appellants have retired from service between 2000-2004. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel of the FCI further submitted that several appellants have also taken voluntary retirement in the year 2004. The learned counsel of the respondent FCI authorities specifically submitted before this court that the appellants herein filed the writ petition in the year 2005 challenging their order of absorption which was passed in the year 1985. The said learned counsel of the FCI authorities further submitted that this court should appreciate the fact that the appellants herein filed the writ petition only after their retirement from the service, when master and servant relationship between the appellants and the respondent FCI authorities seized to exist. 9. The said learned counsel of the FCI authorities further submitted that this court should appreciate the fact that the appellants herein filed the writ petition only after their retirement from the service, when master and servant relationship between the appellants and the respondent FCI authorities seized to exist. 9. THE learned counsel of the FCI specifically urged before this court that the appellants herein, after long lapse of almost 20 years, cannot raise any dispute with regard to the pay scale, which was fixed by the respondent FCI authorities at the time of their absorption after submission of the prescribed option form. THE learned counsel of the FCI authorities submitted that on the ground of delay alone, no relief should be granted to the appellants herein. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned counsel of the respondent FCI further submitted that pay protection has been duly granted to the appellants herein and the said appellants after absorption did not suffer any financial loss. Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned senior counsel of the appellants submitted that the said appellants are entitled to enjoy the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 for serving in a post for more than 18 years. THE deputationists who were working as A. G. - II were granted the benefit of pay scale of A. G. -II at the time of absorption and thereafter FCI authorities also granted the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 to the said Assistant Grade employees for working for more than 18 years as A. G. - II and granted next higher scale of pay which would appear from the fact that the scale of pay for A. G. - II in FCI is Rs. 380-640 and after granting the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 next higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 425-700 was granted to the said A. G. - II employees by FCI in compliance with the specific direction passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being C. O. No. 21 (W) of 1989 (F.C.I. Deputationist Association and Ors. Vs. F.C.I. and Ors.) which was not upset by the Division Bench of this Court or the Supreme Court. 10. UNDISPUTEDLY, the appellants herein were granted pay scale of Rs. 290-485 after absorption in FCI. On examination of the Annexure-II of Circular No. 21 of 1984 we find that the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. Vs. F.C.I. and Ors.) which was not upset by the Division Bench of this Court or the Supreme Court. 10. UNDISPUTEDLY, the appellants herein were granted pay scale of Rs. 290-485 after absorption in FCI. On examination of the Annexure-II of Circular No. 21 of 1984 we find that the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 290-485 was granted in FCI to those employees who enjoyed the scale of pay of Rs. 300-685 in the West Bengal State Government. The appellants herein enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption in FCI and therefore, the FCI authorities cannot assign the pay scale of Rs. 290-485 to the appellants herein after absorption in FCI since the aforesaid pay scale can be granted only in respect of the employees who enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 in the West Bengal State Government. In Annexure-II of circular no. 21 of 1984 corresponding scale of pay equivalent to the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 has not been mentioned. The appellants herein enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption in FCI and therefore, cannot be treated at par with the employees who enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 before absorption. The appellants herein are certainly entitled to enjoy the higher pay scale than the employees who were in the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 in West Bengal State Government before absorption and after absorption in FCI assigned the pay scale of Rs. 290-485. The next higher pay scale of the pay scale of Rs. 290-485 in the Annexure-II is Rs. 380-640 and therefore, the appellants herein claimed the pay scale of Rs. 380-640 being the next higher pay scale of Rs. 290-485 in Annexure-II of the circular no. 21 of 1984. The pay scale granted to the appellants before absorption was admittedly higher than the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 since the said appellants were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 before absorption. The aforesaid benefit of higher scale of pay granted to the appellants herein cannot be taken away while assigning corresponding scale of pay after absorption in FCI. 11. UNDISPUTEDLY the corresponding pay scale in respect of the employees who were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in the West Bengal Government before absorption was not mentioned in Annexure-II of the circular no. 11. UNDISPUTEDLY the corresponding pay scale in respect of the employees who were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in the West Bengal Government before absorption was not mentioned in Annexure-II of the circular no. 21 of 1984 and therefore, the appellants herein cannot accept the pay scale of Rs. 290- 485 after absorption in FCI since the same is the corresponding pay scale in respect of the employees who enjoyed the lower scale of pay of Rs. 300-685 before absorption. Since the appellants herein enjoyed the higher pay scale of Rs. 340- 750 before absorption, they were entitled to claim the appropriate scale of pay in FCI after absorption and from the comparative statement mentioned in Annexure-II we find that the next higher pay scale of Rs. 290-485 is Rs. 380-640. Accordingly, the appellants herein rightly claimed the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 380-640 after absorption in FCI as they admittedly enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in the West Bengal State Government before absorption. 12. FCI cannot under any circumstances fit the employees namely, the appellants herein in a lower scale of pay at the time of absorption even after giving pay protection instead of sanctioning the higher scale of pay while the protecting the pay of the appellants after absorption. The appellants cannot be assigned the corresponding lower scale of pay after absorption since the said appellants after absorption in FCI were entitled to the equivalent scale of pay as far as possible in view of Clause 9 ( c ) of the agreement dated 26th Nov ember, 1966. It has been argued on behalf of the FCI authorities that the appellants herein are not entitled to enjoy the benefits of the pay scale which is meant for Assistant Grade-II. Admittedly, the employees were in Assistant Grade-III at the time of absorption but entitled to enjoy the benefit of higher pay scale in view of ROPA Rule 9, since the said appellants served in the post for more than 18 years before absorption. The Assistant Grade-II employees also after absorption enjoyed the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 for working more than 18 years as Assistant Grade -II which would appear from the fact that the FCI authorities granted the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 to the Assistant Grade -II employees after absorption instead of the scale of pay of Rs. The Assistant Grade-II employees also after absorption enjoyed the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 for working more than 18 years as Assistant Grade -II which would appear from the fact that the FCI authorities granted the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 to the Assistant Grade -II employees after absorption instead of the scale of pay of Rs. 380-640 meant for the said Assistant Grade-II employees pursuant to the specific direction passed earlier by the Single Bench of this court in a different proceeding, which was not modified by the Division Bench of this court in C.O. No. 21 (W) of 1989 or even by the Supreme Court. The appellants were not placed in a higher scale by FCI which they had been enjoying during deputation, but FCI placed the appellants in the lower scale on absorption. A higher scale of pay carries with it a higher status in the organization. Placement of a higher-scale-employee in a lower scale affects his status. Protection of pay in a lower scale cannot be equated with the status of a higher scale. 13. AS per Clause 9 ( c ) of Agreement, upon absorption, FCI is to make regulations in such manner as they conform to, as far as possible, to the conditions of service that governed such officers and staff under the Government. Clause 9 (c) relates to the protection of rights of a deputationist on absorption in such manner so that the conditions of service do not get adversely affected. Clause 9 (c) becomes relevant when circular for absorption (with option form) is issued by FCI. In the Annexure-II to the circular no. 21 of 1984, there was no mention of the corresponding scale in FCI for the scale of Rs. 340-750 which the appellants had been getting. This omission operates contrary to the said Clause 9(c). Even apart from the said Agreement, an employer cannot take away the right of an existing higher scale of pay of an employee since the same will be arbitrary and unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. THE appellants had earned the higher scale benefits before absorption and it was not given to them by FCI as a bounty so that it can be discontinued by FCI whimsically. 14. THE appellants had earned the higher scale benefits before absorption and it was not given to them by FCI as a bounty so that it can be discontinued by FCI whimsically. THE learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal erroneously held that there is no scope for the writ petitioner to rely on the agreement dated 26th November, 1966 and the benefit of ROPA Rule 9 was no longer available to them without realising that the accrued benefit of the appellants cannot be taken away under any circumstances as sought to have been done by the FCI authorities by assigning corresponding lower pay scale to the appellants after absorption. It is true that the appellants herein voluntarily opted for absorption on the terms and conditions appearing in circular no. 21 of 1984 but in Annexure-II of the circular no. 21 of 1984 no comparative/equivalent pay scale in FCI was mentioned in respect of the employees who were in the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in the West Bengal State Government like the appellants herein. THErefore, in the option form the appellants herein had to mention specifically the corresponding equivalent scale of pay as far as possible in FCI. The pay scale of Rs. 380-640 was claimed by the appellants after absorption in FCI and was also mentioned in the option form since the said pay scale was granted by the FCI to those employees who were enjoying the pay scale above of Rs. 300-685 in West Bengal State Government. The appellants herein undisputedly enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in the State Government before absorption in FCI and therefore, they cannot be assigned the pay scale of Rs. 290-485 after absorption since the said pay scale of Rs. 290-485 is meant for the employees who enjoyed the pay scale of Rs. 300-685 being the lower scale of pay than the scale of pay enjoyed by the appellants in the State Government. In view of non-mentioning of the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in Annexure-II, the appellants herein had to mention the appropriate scale of pay which should be available to them after absorption in the option form and in our opinion, the said appellants were entitled to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 380-640. 15. In view of non-mentioning of the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 340-750 in Annexure-II, the appellants herein had to mention the appropriate scale of pay which should be available to them after absorption in the option form and in our opinion, the said appellants were entitled to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 380-640. 15. BY exercising option, the appellants did not give up their right to claim the appropriate equivalent pay scale in FCI after absorption. The learned counsel of the FCI authorities also raised the point of delay in order to deny the benefits claimed by the appellants herein. From the records we find that the appellants while exercising option in the year 1984 claimed the benefits of higher scale of pay. Furthermore, the Association of which the appellants are members filed the writ petition before this court in the year 1989 for identical claim which ultimately ended in favour of the Association in the Supreme Court in the year 1996 when the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent FCI was dismissed. From the records we also find that the appellants herein submitted several representations till 1999 and the said representations were also forwarded by the concerned District Managers of FCI to the higher authority. The ultimate benefit of the higher pay scale pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.O. No. 21 (W) of 1989 was available to the Assistant Grade-II employees after disposal of the contempt application on 30th June, 2005. In the instant case, the writ petition was filed by the appellants on 28th September, 2005. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to hold that there has been any unreasonable delay on the part of the appellants herein to approach this court for redressal of their grievances. In any event it is not a fit case where the genuine claims of the appellants should be denied on the ground of delay alone. Furthermore, no third-party right has also accrued in the mean time. Even assuming there was delay on the part of the appellants to approach this court for redressal of their grievances, the same did not prejudice the interests of the respondent FCI authorities since the funds required to be spent for granting the benefit of higher scale of pay to the appellants herein were so retained and utilised by the FCI. Even assuming there was delay on the part of the appellants to approach this court for redressal of their grievances, the same did not prejudice the interests of the respondent FCI authorities since the funds required to be spent for granting the benefit of higher scale of pay to the appellants herein were so retained and utilised by the FCI. Therefore, we hold that the delay, if there be any, on the part of the appellants to initiate the legal proceedings cannot be fatal in the instant case and the valid claims of the appellants cannot be rejected on the aforesaid ground of delay. 16. FOR the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained and we therefore refuse to affirm the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. The respondent FCI authorities are directed to grant the benefit of higher scale of pay of Rs. 380-640 to the appellants herein from the date of their absorption in FCI and disburse the amount due and payable to the said appellants in this regard at an early date but positively within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 17. IN the facts of the present case, there will be however no order as to costs. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking.