Holding

The rationalisation scheme cannot be fully accepted as HPCL failed to demonstrate an equation of posts; a new committee must be appointed to determine such equivalence, without disturbing existing promotions.

Summary

The petitioners, former officers of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. (CORIL), challenged HPCL's 1980 rationalisation scheme that integrated management staff of CORIL, ESSO and Lube India into HPCL pay‑grades. They alleged that the scheme was arbitrary because HPCL failed to equate posts on the basis of functional similarity and co‑equal responsibility, resulting in CORIL officers being placed one or two grades lower than their counterparts, and that they were forced to accept the scheme under duress, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. HPCL contended that the scheme was formulated after extensive consultations, that all officers had signed acceptance letters, and that no material was produced to show any violation. The Court held that while it could not itself determine the equation of posts, it was evident that HPCL had not produced any evidence of such an equation, rendering the scheme unacceptable in full. Consequently, the Court directed HPCL to constitute a new committee, excluding previous members, to examine the equation of posts within six months, while leaving existing promotions untouched. The writ petitions were allowed, but the scheme was not set aside.

Issues considered

The rationalisation scheme violates Articles 14 and 16 due to lack of proper equation of posts.
Whether the compression of grades at lower levels is arbitrary and unlawful.
Whether the petitioners' consent to the scheme was obtained under duress.
Whether the scheme should be set aside after eight years or remedied by a fresh committee.

Legislation cited

Subjects

functional equivalenceco‑equal responsibilityrationalisation schemeinter se seniorityArticles 14 and 16public sector undertakingsamalgamationpay‑scale compressionduress

Judgment

N.P. VERMA & ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JANUARY 31, 1989

B [MURARI MOHON DUIT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]
~
Labour and Services: Employees of ESSO, Lube India and
Caltex Oil Refining Co.-Amalgamation with HPCL-Fitment in·equi-
valent groups-Equation of different posts to be in accordance with
functional equivalence and co-equal responsibility. ~J
\
Cl
ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and Lube India
Ltd. were acquired by the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India)
Act, 1974 and vested in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In
.,,.
1978 Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd., another Government company was
amalgamated with HPCL. Consequent upon this integration of manage-
D ment staff of CORIL and HPCL, dispute arose as to their fitment in
equivalent gronps and fixation of inter se seniority. The Tandon
Committee appointed to examine the issues recommended the applica-
tioit of the principles of (1) functional similarity, and (2) co-equal
. responsibility, for equating positions in the two companies. The HPCL
appointed two functional directors for framing a rationalisation scheme. ~
E In the said scheme for the purpose of equation of 10 grades of CORIL
with 8 grades of HPCL some compression was made in the lower
grades, namely, R6-A and R6-B of CORIL were clubbed together and
equated with grade A of HPCL. Again, grade R7-A and R7-B were
clubbed together and equated with grade B of HPCL.
-
I

F The complaint of the petitioners, former officers and employees of
CORIL, was that the rationalisation scheme was arbitrary, in that the
i
fitment of officers of CORIL and those of the ESSO/LIL in the HPCL
scales of pay had been made without the equation of posts, which was a
sine qua non for integration· of officers coming from different sources,
so much so that they had been consistantly fitted in one or two grades
G lower in HPCL vis-a-vis their counterparts in ESSO/LIL performing
similar duties and having similar responsibilities and status; that in the
Tandon Committee report, the post of General Sales Representative of
ESSO had been equated with the post of Retail Development Supervisor
of CO RIL on the principle of functional similarity and co-equal
*'-
responsibility; that since these two posts were congruent, they should
H have been fitted in the same group, that is, in Group B of the new HPCL
362
N.P. VERMA v. U.0.1. 363

Grade structure, whereas in the said scheme the post of General Sales
A
Representative of ESSO (E-6) and that of Depot Superintendent (E-6)
.; have be~n placed i_n tb.e Salary Group B of HPCL, while the post of
Retail Development Supervisor (R6-A) and Depot Superintendent/
Relief Depot Superintendent (R6-B) of CORIL have been placed in
~ Salary ·Group A of HPCL. It is further averred that the post of Depot
Superintendent-A (R7-R) and that of Marketing Representative (R7-A) B
of CORIL have been placed in the Salary Group B of HPCL, but
similar posts of ESSO being E-5/ESA have been placed in Salary Group
C of HPCL; that the compression should have been made at the higher
grades namely, grades R-11and12 and the grade of General Manager,
and that the petitioners were forced to signify their consent to the said
scheme under duress. They, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the
said scheme was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
c
India.

For the respondents, it was contended that the two committees
that were appointed by the Chairman of HPCL considered the different
me_thods of fitment and equivalence of different pay-scales of ESSO, D
LIL and CORIL with the pay-scales of IOC, that the reports submitted
by these two committees were considered by the HPCL along with the
.submissions made by the officers' association through their representa·
ti«i!ts bef~re approval, that the terms and conditions of the new appoint·
ments as per the rationalisation scheme were circulated to each of the
CORIL employees with its letter dated July 7, 1980 and they having E

. accepted in writing the said scheme they were precluded from challeng-
ing the same .

-'f-. Allowing the writ petitions,

.1 HELD: 1. While it is not within the domain of the Court to make F
the· equation of posts for the purpose of integration, it is surely
the concern of the Court to see that before the integration is made
and consequent fitment of officers in different grades/scales of pay
is effected, there must be an equation of different posts in accordance
with the principle of functional equivalence and co-equal responsi-
bility. [372G-H) G

In the instant case, no evidence or material has been placed before
the Court on behalf of the HPCL in support of such equation of posts.
The rationalisation scheme with regard to the placing of the officers of
CORIL in different IOC/HPCL grades of pay, therefore, cannot be
accepted in full. [372H) H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A 2. This is not for the Court to say whether the compression ,\
should have been made in the lower grades or in the higher grades. By
such compression, grades R6-A and R7-A have been upgraded and the
persons placed in those grades have been benelitted. If compression had
been made in the upper grades there would have been much complica·
B tions in view of the functional differences, for the grade of General
Manager cannot be clubbed together with a lower grade. The conten· ~
~·
tion that the compression should have been made in the higher grades of
CORIL cannot, therefore, be accepted. [37IF-G]

3. The apprehension of the petitioners that in the event of their
(
refusal to accept the scheme, their services will be terminated cannot be ·-""1 -
c rejected. It may he that there was no reasonable basis for such
\
apprehension, but the plea that because of such apprehension the
petitioners had no other alternative than to accept the scheme, cannot Jr•
be disbelieved. [371B]

D 4. Having regard to the interest of several officers of HPCL who
would be affected if the scheme is set-aside, and in view of the fact that
during the eight years in which the scheme had been in operation many
changes had taken place with regard to the positions and ranks of the
officers of HPCL including petitioners, HPCL is directed to appoint a
committee consisting of high officials of HPCL and Central Govern· ·~
ment, other than those who were in the previous committees, within one
E
month for the purpose of considering the question of equation of posts
on the basis of functional similarity, equivalence and co-equal responsi-
bility, and to give effect to the same. Promotions and the existing posi- •
tions of the officers of HPCL by virtue of the implementation of the
impugned scheme, not to be interfered with. [3730, F-G; 374B]
F
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 331-47
i \
of 1984.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Rajinder Sachar and K.T. Anantharaman for the Petitioners.
G
Narayan B. Shetty, G.B. Pai, S.S. Shroff, Mrs. P.S. Shroff, Miss
Girja Krishan, S.A. Shroff, Mrs. Pallavi Shroff, O.C. Mathur and
A.M. Dittia for the Respondents.
*-I
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.P. VERMA v. U.0.1. IDUTI, J.] 365

). DUTT, J. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are former
A
officers and employees of the Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., which
has since been amalgamated with the Hindustan Petroleum Corpora-
tion Limited. The complaint of the petitioners is with regard to the
inter se fitment of the officers and employees of the Caltex Oil Refin-.
ing (India) Ltd. and the other two Companies which have also been
amalgamated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., namely, B
~
ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and Lube India Ltd.

In 1974, the Undertakings in India of ESSO Eastern Inc. that is,
~}- ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. (for short 'ESSO')
and Lube India Ltd. (for short 'LIL') were acquired by the ESSO
(Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 and vested in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short 'HPCL'), a Govern-
c
• '!( ment Company. In 1977, the shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd .
and Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd. were acquired by the
Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and
the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd. Act, 1977 and vested
in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. (for short 'CORIL'), a Govern- D
ment Company. On May 5, 1978, by the order of the Company Law
Board, CORIL was amalgamated with HPCL.

By an order dated June 17, 1978, the Central Government
1 appointed a one-man Committee of Mr. B.B. Tandon, IAS (Retd.),
for the purpose of examining the problems arising out the the integra- E
tion of the management staff of CORIL and HPCL The said Commit-
• tee was to make recommendation inter alia on the following:

(i) fitment in equivalent Groups;

t (ii) criteria to be adopted for determination of seniority and
fixation ofinter se seniority; and
F

(iii) placement in appropriate positions.

In September, 1970, the Tandon Committee submitted a report
to the Central Government recommending that for equating positions G
in the two companies and fitting them in equivalent groups, the follow-
·--t ing two principles should be followed:

1. The principle of functional similarity

2. The principle of co-equal responsibility. H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

We shall have occasion to refer to the report of the Tandon .Ji..
A
Committee later in this judgment, for much reliance has been placed
by the petitioners on the report. While the report of the Tandon Com-
mittee was under the consideration of the Central Government, HPCL
appointed two functional directors for the purpose of formulating a
rationalisation scheme. In this connection, we may refer to a letter
B dated July 28, 1979 of the Central Government whereby it advised
HPCL that the pay-scales and perquisites of management and emp-
loyees in the nationalised oil companies should be rationalised and
fitted into the pay-scales of the Indian Oil Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as 'IOC', a public sector Company. Further, it was stated in
the said letter that the guiding principle to be adopted for the purpose
was to find out the equivalence, that is to say, the equality of duty and
c also the equality of responsibility.

On July 7, 1980, a circular letter was issued by HPCL annexing
thereto a rationalisation scheme consisting of two parts. In the first
part, the past service benefits that would be admissible to each emp-
D loyee of CORIL on the basis of existing pay-scales and in the second
part, details were given of the rationalised conditions of service, pay-
scales, perquisites and retirement benefits. In the circular it was stated
as follows:

"In relation to your fitment or fixation of salary in the
E proposed rationalised scales, should you have any grie-
vance you will be at liberty to represent your case to a
Grievance Committee, which has been specially constituted •
for the purpose. -

I am directed to request you to signify your accep-
F tance of this offer within 30 days from the date of receipt of
this letter by returning the duplicate copy of this letter duly
signed by you. On receipt of your acceptance, consequent
letters will be issued."
•
In the scheme the pay-scales of ESSO, LIL and CORIL sought
G to be equated with the pay-scales of HPCL are as follows:

FromESSO To : HPCL HPCL -+-
.
Salary Group Salary Group Salary Scale
Rs~
E-7, E-8 A 750-40-1150-50-1550
H E-6 B 1050-50-1450-60-1750
N.P. VERMA v. U.0.1. IDUIT, J.I 367

E-5, E-5A c 1450-60-1690-65-1950 A
E-4 D 1600-65-2120
E-3 E 1850-100-2350
E-2 F 2000-100-2500
0 & E-1 & Unclassified G 2250-100-2750
General Manager H 2500-100-3000
B
From : LIL To : HPCL HPCL
Salary Group Salary Group Salary Scale
Rs.
~·· L-7
L-6
A
B
750-40-1150-50-1550
1050-50-1450-60-1750
L-5 c 1450-60-1690-65-1950 c
L-4 D 1600-65-2120
L-3 E 1850-100-2350
L-2 F 2000-100-2350
L-1 G 2250-100-2750
General Manager H 2500-100-3000
D
FromCORIL To HPCL HPCL
Salary Group Salary Group Salary Scale
Rs.
R-6A,R-6B A 759-40-1150-50-1550
R-7A,R-7B B 1050-50-1450-60-1750
R-8 c 1450-60-1690-65-1950
R-9 D 1600-65-2120
R-10 E 1850-100-2350
R-11 F 2000-100-2500
R-12 G 2250-100-2750
General Manager H 2500-100-3000 F

So far as CORIL is concerned, it appears that it has 10 grades,
while HPCL has 8 Grades. For, the purpose of equation of these 10
grades of CORIL with 8 Grades of HPCL, some compression has been
made in the lower Grades, namely, R6 A and R6 B have been clubbed
together and equated with Grade A of HPCL. Again Grades R7 A and G

r
R7 B of CORIL have been clubbed together and equated with Grade
B of HPCL. In ESSO" the Grades E-7 and E-8 have been clubbed
together and equated with Grade A of HPCL. In the Salary Group of
ESSO, the Grades E-5 and E-5A have been shown to be two different
Grades, but it is not disputed before us that these two Grades are
really one Grade. H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

The complaint of the petitioners is that in the matter of fitment/
A
integration of the officers of CORIL, that is, the petitioners, and the
officers of ESSO/LIL into HPCL/IOC Grades, gross disparities have
been made to the prejudice of the officers of CORIL. It is the case of
the petitioners that the officers of CORIL have been fitted by HPCL
consistently in one or two Grades lower in HPCL vis-a-vis their
B counterparts in ESSO/LIL, performing similar duties and having simi-
lar responsibilities and status. It is urged on behalf of CORIL that in
integrating the officers CORIL with those of ESSO and LIL, HPCL
did not make any attempt to equate all the positions held by the
officers of CORIL with those held by the officers of ESSO/LIL. It is
submitted that before any fitment can be made into any scale of pay, it
is incumbent to make an equation of posts and without such equation
c the officers of CORIL could not be fitted into the pay-scales of HPCL
along with the officers of ESSO and LIL.

In support of the contention that HPCL has not made any equa-
tion of posts before fitment in HPCL/IOC scales of pay, Mr. Sachar,
D learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has placed
much reliance on the Tandon Committee's Report. In the said report,
the post of General Sales Representative of ESSO has been equated
with the post of Retail Development Supervisor of CORIL. In the
scheme prepared by HPCL, the post of General Sales Representative
of ESSO (E-6) and that of Depot Superintendent (E-6) have been
E placed in the Salary Group B of HPCL, while the post of Retail
Development Supervisor (R6-A) and Depot Superintendent/Relief
Depot Superintendent (R6-B) of CORIL have been placed in the
Salary Group A of HPCL. In T'andon Committee's Report, it has been
observed that the functional similarities and the responsibility carried
by both these functionaries, namely, Retail Development Supervisor
F of CORIL and General Sales Representative of ESSO, are alike.
Further, it has been observed that since these two posts are congruent,
they can be fitted in the same Group, that is, in Group B of the new
HPCL Grade Structure representing IOC scales of pay. The post of
Depot Superintendent-A (R7-B) and that of Marketing Representa-
tive (R7-A) of CORIL have been placed in the Salary Group B of
G HPCL, but similar posts of ESSO being E-5/E-SA have been placed in
the Salary Group C of HPCL. It is thus complained that the scheme,
which has been prepared by HPCL, is arbitrary and is not based on a
proper equation of posts.

On the other hand, it is the case of HPCL that before the
H rationalisation scheme was finalised, HPCL Employees Management
N.P. VERMA v. U.0.1. [DU'IT, J.[ 369

Staff Association and CORIL Staff Association submitted their writ- A
ten submissions on December 6, 1977 and July 17, 1977 respectively.
These representations were considered by the Government and after
several meetings between the Chief Executives of HPCL and CORIL
and the Secretary and other senior 6fficers of the Ministry and Bureau
of Public Enterprise, Government formulated the guidelines for
rationalisation and communicated its decision to both CORIL and B
HPCL by its letter dated July 28, 1979. With a view to giving a further
opportunity to the employees of erstwhile ESSO and CORIL group of
officers, the Chairman of HPCL appointed two Committees to submit
~-·- their recommendations as to the equivalence and fitment of existing
officers on the basis of IOC's scales of pay in accordance with the
Government guidelines. HPCL considered the reports submitted by C
the said two Committees and also different methods of fitment and
equivalence of different pay-scales ofESSO, LIL and CORIL with the
pay-scales of roe and, keeping in view all these factors including the
submissions made by the Officers' Association through their represen-
tations, HPCL approved the proposal of rationalisation of pay-scales,
allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, an offer letter dated July 7, D
1980 together with the terms and conditions of new appointment as per
the rationalisation scheme was sent to each of the employees. The
further case of HPCL is that without exception every one of the
CORIL Management Employees accepted the fresh terms offered to
them by the said letter dated July 7, 1980.
E
It is, accordingly, contended by Mr. Pai, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of HPCL, that the impugned rationalisa.tion
scheme having been finalised after repeated consultations with the
officers of CORIL and their Association and all the officers of CORIL
having accepted in writing the said scheme, they are precluded from
challenging the same. F

Another fact, upon which reliance has been placed on behalf of
HPCL, is an order of this Court dated December 17, 1979 passed in
Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 1979 whereby HPCL challenged the judg-
ment of the Delhi High Court quashing a circular dated March 8, 1978
issued by the Board of Directors of CORIL, on the writ petition filed G
by the employees of CORIL being Writ Petition No. 426 of 1978. Two
other appeals being Civil Appeal No. 3212 of 1979 and Civil Appeal
No. 35186 of 1979 were also filed by the officers of CORIL and Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. respectively. The said order is as follows:

"The petitioner-Corporation will be at liberty to frame a H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 1 S.C.R.

A scheme, if it wishes to do so, in accordance with the judg-
ment of the High Court under appeal. If the scheme is
framed, it will not be implemented for a period of three
weeks from the date of its framing and the respondents will
be at liberty within the period of 3 weeks to apply to this
B Court for stay. This order will be without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the petitioner-Corporation in the
appeal."

Admittedly, no application was made to this Court by the offi-
cers of CORIL praying for stay of the rationalisat.ion scheme within a
period of three weeks. Relying on the said order of this Court and also
c on the fact that no application for stay was made to this Court within
the period allowed, it is submitted on behalf of HPCL that the
petitioners accepted the rationalisation scheme which is also evidenced
by their written acceptance. If they had any objection to the scheme,
they would have surely made a representation to this Court in the said
Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 1979 which was then pending.
D
In the writ petition, the petitioners have emphatically denied the
allegation of HPCL that discussions were made with individuals and
groups of Management Staff of CORIL with regard to the rationalisa-
tion scheme. As to the acceptance of the rationalisation scheme, the
case of the petitioners is that on July 12, 1980 a news item appeared in
E
the Bombay edition of the Times of India to the effect that under the
scheme of rationalisation, the services of nearly 950 officers of HPCL
would be terminated, and that such officers would simultaneously be
reappointed on the basis of public sector salary. In view of the said
news, the petitioners filed an application in this Court in the said Civil
Appeals praying for stay or suspension of the operation of the said
F
offer letter dated July 7, 1980 and for restraining HPCL from termi-
nating the services of the Management Staff of CORIL pending the
disposal of the Civil Appeals. HPCL filed an affidavit in opposition to
the said application of the petitioners to the effect that no decision had
been taken by HPCL to terminate the services of the officers of
CORIL. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the said application
G recording that in view of the said affidavit of HPCL, no order was
needed to be passed. Further, the case of the petitioners is that in spite
of the said order of this Court, the petitioners stiH apprehended that
HPCL would terminate the services of the petitioners in the event of
their refusal to accept the said scheme and, as such, the petitioners
under duress were forced to signify their consent to the said scheme.
H
· N.P. VERMA v. U.0.-i. [DUTT, J.I 371

We have considered the explanation of the petitioner justifying
A
the acceptance of the said offer letter dated July 7, 1988 and the
rationalisation scheme sent therewith and also the contention of
HPCL in that regard. In our opinion, the apprehension of the peti-
tioners that in the event of their refusal to accept the scheme, their
services will be terminated cannot be rejected on the face of it. It may
be that there was no reasonable basis for such apprehension, but the B
plea that because of such apprehension the petitioners had no oth_er
alternative
. I
than .to accept the scheme, cannot
..
be disbelieved. At the
same time, we do not also put any blame on HPCL for implementing
the said scheme w)lich was accepted by-tlie-petitioners and· other offi-
cers of CORIL. Instead of disposing of these.writ petitions on this
technical grounds, we may proceed tli consldef" ihe respective conten-
tions of the parties on merits. -
c
The main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that in the
. rationalisation scheme a compression has been made at the lower
level, namely, Grades R6 A and R6 B have been clubbed together and
instead of placing them in the Salary Group B of HPCL, as has been D
done for the equivalent Grade E-6 of ESSO, they have been placed in
the Salary Group A of HPCL. Similarly, the Grades R7 A and R7 B
have been clubbed together and placed in Salary Group B of HPCL,
while the equivalent Grade of ESSO has been placed in the Salary
Group C of HPCL.
E
The contention of the petitioners is that the compression should
have been' made at the higher grades, namely, Grades R11 and R12
and the Grade of General Manager. This is not for this Court to say
whether the compression should have been made in the lower grades
or in the higher grades. By ·such compression, Grades R6 A and R7 A
have been upgraded and the persons placed in those Grades have been F
benefited by such upgradation. There is much substance in the conten-
tion made on behalf of HPCL that if compression had been made in
the upper grades, there would be much complications and, moreover,
such compression in the upper grades was not convenient to be made
in view of functional differences. The Grade of General Manager
cannot be clubbed together with a lower grade. In the circumstances, G
we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the
compression should have been made in the higher grades of CORIL.

The most important question that requires consideration is
whether in framing the rationalisation scheme HPCL has really made
the equation of posts of CORIL with those of ESSO/LIL. It is the H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

positive case of the petitioners that no such equation has been made
A
and the fitment of the officers of CORIL and those of ESSO/LIL in
the IOC/HPCL scales of pay have been made without the equation of
posts, which is a sine qua non for integration of officers coming from
different sources. The petitioners have mainly relied upon the recom-
mendation of the Tandon Committee that General Sales Representa-
B tive of ESSO has been equated with the post of Retail Development
Supervisor of CORIL. In the scheme prepared by HPCL, the post of
General Sales Representative of ESSO and that of Depot Superinten-
dent have been placed in the Salary Group B of HPCL, while the post
of Retail Development Supervisor and Depot Superintendent/Relief
Depot Superintendent of CORIL have been placed in the Salary
Group A of HPCL.
c
As against this, the contention of HPCL is that the two Commit-
tees that were appointed by the Chairman of HPCL considered the
different methods of fitment and equivalence of different pay-scales of
ESSO, LIL and CORIL with the pay-scales of IOC. Except the bare
D allegation, no material has been produced before us on behalf of
HPCL to show that the said Committees had, as a matter of fact,
considered the question of equation of posts on the basis of the princi-
ple as laid down by the Central Government while referring the matter
to the Tandon Committee, namely, functional similarity and co-equal
responsibility. In the affidavits filed on behalf ofHPCL, no particulars
E have been given witn regard to the functional equivalence or otherwise
of the different grades of these officers of CORIL, ESSO and LIL. It is
also not stated what happened to the consideration by the Government
of the Tandon Committee's report. There can be no doubt that the
Government is not bound to accept the recommendation· of the
Tandon Committee but, at the same time, the equation of posts has to
F be made on the principle of functional equivalence and co-equal
responsibility. As no materials have been produced in that regard on
behalf of HPCL, it is difficult for us to hold that the different grades of
posts have been compared before placing the officers of these com-
panies in the JOC/HPCL scales of pay. While it is not within the
domain of the Court to make the equation of posts for the purpose of
G integration, it is surely the concern of the Court to see that before·the
integration is made and consequent fitment of officers in different
grades/scales of pay is effected, there must be an equation of different
posts in accordance with the principle stated above. As there is no
evidence or material in support of such equation of posts, it is difficult
to accept the rationalisation scheme with regard to the placing of the
H officers of CORIL in different IOC/HPCL grades of pay.
N.P. VERMA v. U.0.1. [DUTI, J.[ 373

The petitioners approached the Grievance Committee, but the
~- A
Grievance Committee did not consider the objections of the peti-
tioners to the said scheme. In our opinion, there is much substance in
the contention made on behalf of HPCL that it was not the business of
the Grievance Committee to consider the propriety or otherwise of the
rationalisation scheme, but if any officer has not been placed in the
proper grade, the Grievance Committee may place such officer in the B
,.,.-. proper grade in accordance with the rationalisation scheme.

Be that as it may, in the view which we take, namely, that there

f has been no equation of posts, the rationalisation scheme cannot be
accepted in full. The prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition is for
a declaration that the said scheme is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India and for a writ, order or direction in the
c
.,, nature of mandamus directing HPCL to remove the discrimination
against the petitioners in regard to the impugned rationalisation
scheme.

The question is whether we should set aside the scheme after the D
lapse of about eight years. During these eight years, by virtue of
implementation of the scheme, many changes have taken place with
regard to the positions and ranks of the officers of HPCL including the
petitioners and to set aside the whole scheme at this stage would surely
~ affect the service structure of HPCL. We are also not oblivious of the
order of this Court dated July 20, 1984 recording the statement made E
in the affidavit of HPCL that if this Court would ultimately decide the
matter in favour of the petitioners, HPCL would accord to them all the
benefits which they would be entitled to. That is an undertaking given
by HPCL, but we should also look to the interest of several officers of

t HPCL who would be affected, if the scheme is set aside.

In the circumstances, without setting aside the scheme, we.direct
F

HPCL to appoint a Committee consisting of high officials of HPCL
and Central Government, other than those who were in the previous
Committees, within one month from date for the purpose of consider-
ing the question of equation of posts on the basis of functional simi-
larity, equivalence and co-equal responsibility, that is to say, whether G
on that basis Grades R6 A and R6 B of CORIL, either jointly or
~- separately, can be equated with the Grade E-6 Of ESSO and, similarly,
Grades R7 A and R7 B of CORIL, either jointly or separately, can be
equated with Grade E-5/E-SA ofESSO. In considering the question of
equation of posts, the respondents shall also take into its consideration
the report of the Tandon Committee. Such consideration shall be H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

A made within six months from today. If such equation is found to be in
favour of the petitioners, HPCL shall give effect to the same. But, in
view of the lapse of about eight years for which the petitioners are also
to some extent responsible, the date or dates from which the conse-
quential benefit will be given effect to and also the quantum of such
benefit will be such as may be deemed fit and proper by the respon-
B
dents, having regard to the financial involvement and the changes that
have taken place. We make it clear that, in no event, promotions and
the existing positions of the officers of HPCL, by virtue of the
implementation of the impugned scheme, will be interfered with.

The wirt petitions are disposed of as above. There will be no
C order as to costs.

P.S.S. Petitions allowed.