General Manager, BEST Undertaking Vs. U.B. Mokashi and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:39208) - (High Court of Bombay) (22 Dec 2023)

Right to correct amount of salary gives rise to continuous cause of action and can be exercised at any point of time during service

MANU/MH/5165/2023

Labour and Industrial

In instant case, Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court. By that Order, the Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner-Undertaking to give benefits of additional increments as per BCR No. 19 dated 23rdApril 1987 to the Respondents. The issue involved in the petition is whether the Drivers and Conductors holding the qualification of Graduation are entitled to benefit of additional increments on their promotion to the post of Clerk under the Order dated 1 July 1987. The Industrial Court has upheld entitlement of drivers and conductors to such additional increments. The BEST Undertaking is aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court and has filed the present petition.

From various Awards, as well as well as BCR 19, it appears that the whole intention of granting the benefit of additional increments was to encourage the employees in clerical cadre to acquire the qualification of graduation. At that time, it appears that graduation was not the minimum prescribed qualification for appointment/ promotion on the post of Clerk. This is the reason why the BCR-19 or the Circulars issued before issuance of BCR-19 envisages a situation where a Clerk can be appointed/promoted without the qualification of Graduation. The Scheme therefore clearly aims at encouraging the Clerks to acquire Graduation as early as possible. Thus, Clerks without graduation could be continued in service, but those who acquired graduation would be rewarded with additional increments.

Now graduation has become essential qualification both for recruitment, as well as promotion to the post of Clerk. Therefore, the very concept of encouragement has ceased to exist. However, the BEST Undertaking has still continued the scheme of grant of additional increments even after graduation being prescribed as the minimum eligibility criteria for being direct recruitment and promotion to the post of Clerk. Whether the scheme of grant of additional increment could be continued after prescription of graduation as the minimum eligibility criteria is something for the Petitioner-Undertaking to ponder. However, so long as the scheme continues, the benefit thereof cannot be continued to only one class and denied to other similarly placed Clerks.

Thus, law is well settled that, right to correct amount of salary gives rise to continuous cause of action and can be exercised at any point of time during service. However, limitation would apply for payment of arrears, which need to be restricted to three years prior to filing of claim. The industrial Court has erred in not restricting the arrears arising out of grant of additional increments to three years prior to the date of filing of the Compliant.

Therefore, no patent error can be traced in the order passed by the Industrial Court, except to the extent of not restricting arrears arising out of grant of additional increments to three years prior to the date of filing of the Compliant. The order passed by the Industrial Court is therefore upheld with a modification that the Respondents shall be entitled to arrears of salary and allowances in respect of period of three years prior to filing of the Complaint. Petition disposed off.

Tags : ADDITIONAL INCREMENTS DIRECTION DELAY