Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

U.P. STATE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus B.K. TEWARI

Decided
11 December 1997
Judges listed
D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 436 · 1997 INSC 812
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

D.P. WADHWA, J. Special Leave granted.

p. 437, margin E

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 4, 1977 of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the writ petition of the respondent whereby he was held entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scale and designation of the post he was holding.

p. 437, margin E

In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the appellant the respondent applied for the post of Manager (Personnel) Grade E4 by letter dated May 1, 1986. He was however, offered the post of Deputy Manager (P & IR) on terms and conditions as mentioned in letter dated October 23, 1986 of the appellant. The respondent declined this post stating that he had applied for the post of Manager (P & IR) and could not accept the post of Deputy Manager (P & IR). This was by letter dated November 5, 1986. In the meanwhile, there was revision of pay scales of the officers and staff of the appellant, which was communicated to the appellant by letter dated November .12; 1986 of the State Government. The relevant part of the revision of pay scales is as under :

p. 437, margin F

Designation Pity Scales Designation No. (In Rs.)

p. 438, margin A

3. Dy. Manager/ 1400-1800 Manager Sr. Dy. Mana- (Works)

p. 438, margin A

ger I Manager

p. 438, margin A

4. Manager/ 1500-2000 Joint Sr. Manager company (Works)/Company Secretary Secretary

p. 438, margin B

Then comes the appointment letter issued to letter is in brief and we merely produce the same as "Gram :'UP CEMENT CHURK The Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation (AUP Govt. Undertaking) Registered Post (Seal) UNIT: CHURK CEMENT FACTORY REGD. OFFICE CHURK 231206 Dept: Ref. No. PS/HQ/R-10/1038 Dated: December To, Shri B.K. Tiwari, 120, Vindhweshni Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Varanasi Cantt., 221002. Sub.: Offer of Appointment for the

p. 438, margin B

Post of Manager (Perso1111el & JR) Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No. NIL of dated 5th on the above subject. After due consideration to amend your appointment offer to the following extent.

pp. 438–439, margin G

1. Your designation is hereby amended as Manager {Personnel

p. 439, margin A

& IR).

p. 439, margin A

2. Your basic pay will be Rs. 1.500 per month in the scale of

p. 439, margin A

pay of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000.

p. 439, margin B

3. Your joining time is hereby extended upto 15th February,

p. 439, margin B

1987. No further extension will be granted. All other terms and conditions of our appointment offer No. PS/HQ/R-10/872 dated 23.10.1986 remain unaltered.

p. 439, margin B

Yours faithfully

p. 439, margin C

Sd/- (N.M. Majumdar)

p. 439, margin C

Chairman and Managing Director"

p. 439, margin D

The respondent accepted the offer given to him by the aforesaid appointment letter and accepted the post of the Manager (P & IR). He joined this post on February 28, 1987 and on April 24, 1987 represented to the appellant that he was entitled to placement in the revised grade of Rs. 1800-2250 which according to him was applicable to Manager (P & IR) Head Quarters. This representation was rejected and this led to filing of the writ petition by the r.espondent in the High Court which was allowed as aforesaid.

p. 439, margin D

We do not think there is much controversy involved in the present case. The respondent said that at the time when he had applied for the post of Manager (E-4) it was in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000 and what was offered to him was the post of Deputy Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-1800. Thus, according to the respondent, when he was offered the post of Manager, the pay scale had already been revised to Rs. 1800-2550 to which, he said, he was entitled to. We don't think this contention of the respondent can be accepted. Letter offering him the appointment of Manager is specific. This letter, as noted. above, was written. after the· revision of pay scales. Not only that, the letter mentioning the designation of the respondent had also, in clear terms, mentioned the pay scale of the Manager which was being offered to him. A This letter was accepted by the respondent with the terms and conditions contained therein. The respondent cannot read in the letter more than what it says .. Offer of appointment was given to the respondent after revision of the pay scales and the appellant could not possibly have

pp. 439–440, margin F

given the old pay scales. We, therefore, do not accept the view taken by the High Court.

p. 440

We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. v.s.s. Appeal allowed. ·

p. 440, margin B