JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner is stated to be the registered association of the Officers working in M/s HMT Machines Tools, Kalamassery. The petitioners 2 and 6 are some of the officers who also assert to be members of the 1st petitioner's association. Apparently, many among the members of the petitioners association have now retired from service and some among respondents 2 and 6 have also reached the age of superannuation. They have filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the fact that the 1997 pay revision had not been implemented in M/s HMT Machine Tools Limited at least until this writ petition was filed in the year 2008. They, therefore, pray that the 1997 revision be implemented and that certain anomalies now prevailing in the pay scales of officers vis a vis the workmen be directed to be considered by the respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. P.George William and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, Shri. Saji Varghese. 3. The pleadings of this case would show that pivot of all the controversy is the allegation that the 1997 pay revision had not been implemented by M/s HMT Machine Tools Limited. The petitioners further say that when the 1992 pay revision was earlier implemented, there were certain anomalies which lead to a situation where persons in officer cadre where drawing lower salary than persons in the workmen cadre. According to them, there were also certain anomalies in the pay scale within the officers cadre also. They averred that all this could have been set right, had the 1997 pay revision been implemented in time because by such implementation any prevailing anomaly could also have been set right by stepping the salary of officers, if required. However, they assert that since the 1997 pay revision has not been implemented all the issues, that they have raised herein, continue until this time. 4. The learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 point out that in the year 2014, when this was pending, the company had implemented the 1997 pay revision. The delay in implementation, according to him, is only because the company did not have the resources to honour the recommendations of the pay revision. 4. The learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 point out that in the year 2014, when this was pending, the company had implemented the 1997 pay revision. The delay in implementation, according to him, is only because the company did not have the resources to honour the recommendations of the pay revision. He says that the reserves of the company are so low that if the recommendations of the company are implemented with effect from 1997, the company would face imminent shut down. No other excuse is given by the company in not implementing the 1997 pay revision until 2014. 5. I am sure in my mind that the petitioners are justified in feeling aggrieved that the 1997 pay revision has not been implemented until 2014. Their chagrin is because they are the persons who would be most effected detrimentally by such inaction especially since many of them have already retired and they have lost substantial amounts in the 20 years when the revision was not put into operation. As I have already indicated above, the only reason given by the company for not implementing the 1997 pay revision is that of financial constraints. I am aware that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also declared that in cases of genuine financial duress there may be causes for exception where companies or institutions can defer the implementation of the pay revision. However, the general opinion of courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been that financial constraints cannot be a ground to discriminate persons in service including officers and workman. If there are discrepancies as have been pointed out by the petitioners among the cadre of workmen and officers or among the cadre of officers inter-say such anomalies cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum merely because the company did not have money to implement the 1997 pay revision. 6. The question as to whether the company is under a financial crisis as alleged by them so as to impede them from implementing the 1997 pay revision are essentially in the realm of facts, which I am aware, on account of the well recognized jurisdictional constraints of this Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve into consider. These are issues that will have to be comprehensively viewed and considered by the competent Authority and then to enter into a conclusion as to whether the 1997 pay revision has to be implemented from the year 1997 or a date thereafter depending upon the capacity of the company, based on all relevant factors including financial documents and fiscal details. 7. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the whole issue will have to be panoptically viewed by the competent Secretary of the Ministry of Heavy Industries in Public Enterprises, Government of India, New Delhi, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the representative of the 1st respondent association. While making such a consideration, the competent Secretary will have the opportunity, by access to the relevant material and factual scenario, to conclude as to whether the company is in fact constrained financially from implementing the 1997 pay revision from the year 1997 and until 2014, as has been done now and also see whether even if such revision cannot be implemented due to financial constraints, as to how the issues relating to the anomaly of the pay scales of the petitioners can be best addressed. I say this specifically because, I see that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, the stand taken by the said respondent, as discernible from paragraph 5 thereon, is under:- “It is submitted that after the pay revision of 1997 the Department of Public Enterprises had issued the guidelines vide their O.M.No.2 (49)/98-DPE(WC) dated 25th June, 1999. a Photostat copy of the guideline with regard to Wage Policies and related mattes is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-4(A). In the said guidelines 'Procedure for approval and adopting of new scales of pay on IDA pattern by PSEs' has been appended as Annex.VI giving details how the loss making companies can also adopt the new pay scales provided they give an estimate as to how resources would be generated by them to meet the extra expenditure. The pay revision of 1997 could not be implemented in HMT Group of companies as all of them except HMT (International) Ltd. had been incurring losses and as such the resources for meeting the increased obligation for salaries and wages could not be internally generated by them through improved performance in terms of productivity and profitability.” 8. The pay revision of 1997 could not be implemented in HMT Group of companies as all of them except HMT (International) Ltd. had been incurring losses and as such the resources for meeting the increased obligation for salaries and wages could not be internally generated by them through improved performance in terms of productivity and profitability.” 8. Obviously, therefore, the most competent Authority to take the decision on all this will be the competent Secretary as named above, and I therefore, deem it appropriate that he be directed to cause a consideration of the issues without any further delay. 9. For the above reasons, and in such circumstances, I direct the competent Secretary of the 4th respondent ministry to notify a representative of the 1st respondent to afford him an opportunity of being heard and to take a decision as to when and how the 1997 pay revision can be and should be implemented in M/S. HMT Machine Tools Ltd., taking into account the financial position of the company and pass appropriate orders thereof. On such orders being issued, if there are any further anomalies in the pay scales of workman or officers inter-say or intra-say, as has been alleged by the petitioners the competent Secretary will also issue necessary orders to M/s.HMT Machine Tools Ltd. to initiate appropriate proceedings or orders rectifying such anomaly, adhering to the orders that will be issued relating to the 1997 pay revision. Since this writ petition has been pending here for last more than 9 years, I deem it apposite that the competent Secretary complete the exercise as afore directed as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that M/s HMT Machine Tools Ltd. will be entitled to make all their contentions before the competent Secretary and also to make their request for financial support to the Union of India for honouring the commitments under the 1997 pay revision or for rectifying the anomalies as would be ordered by the competent Secretary. This writ petition is thus ordered.