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

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 11-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
B.K. TEWARI 
DECEMBER 11, 1997 
B 
[D.P. WADHWA AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.) 
Se1Vice Law : 
Appoi11tme11t-<Jffer of-Tenns and conditions-Acceptance-lmplica-
C tions of-Employee declined offer for the post of Deputy Manager (P & IR) 
since he had applied for the post of Manager ( P & IR)-Subsequently, there 
was revision of pay scales:-f'osts of Dy Manager/Sr. Dy Manager/Manager in 
pay scale of Rs. 1,400-1,800 re-designated as Manager (Works) in pay scale 
of Rs. 1,500-2,000 whereas the posts of Manager/Company Secreta1y in pay 
D scale of Rs. 1,500-2,000 re-designated as Senior Manager (Works)!Company 
Secretary in pay scale of Rs. 1,800-2,250-Amended offer given to employee 
designating him as Manager (P & IR) in pay scale of Rs. 1,500-
2,00()--£mployee accepted amended offel'-Thereafter, he raised a claim for 
the revised grade of Rs. 1,800-2,25o-Held : Employee entitled to pay scale 
as per offer of appointment which was accepted by hi~T71erefore, the 
E employee could not claim better tenns-Hence, his claim for higher pay scale 
rejected. 
In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the appellant, the 
respondent applied for the post of Manager (P & IR). The respondent was, 
however, olTerred the post of Deputy Manager (P & IR). The respondent 
F 
declined this post statini~ that he had applied for the post of Manager (P & 
IR) and could not accept the post of Deputy Manager (P & IR). In the 
meanwhile, there was a revision of pay scale and the posts of Dy Manager/Sr. 
Dy. Manager/Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400- 1,800 were re-designated 
as Manager (Works) in the pay scale of Rs. 1,500-2,000 whereas the posts of 
G Manager/Company Secn!tary in the pay scale of Rs. 1,500-2,000 were re-desig· 
nated as Joint Sr. Manager (Works)/Company Secretary in the pay scale of 
Rs. 1,800- 2,250. The amended offer of appointment was given to the respon· 
dent designating him as Manager (P & IR). The appellant rejected the 
respondent's representation for placement in the revised grade of Rs. 1,800· 
2,250. High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent challeng· 
H ing the aforesaid rejection of his representation. Hence this appeal. 
436 
U.P.STATECEMENICORPN.LTD. v. B.K. TIWARI[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 
437 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD : 1. The letter offering the respondent the appointment of 
Manager is specific. This letter 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. This letter was accepted by the respondent with the B 
terms and conditions contained therein. The respondent cannot read in the 
letter more than what it says. Offer of appointment was given to the respon-
dent after revision of the pay scales and the appellant could not possibly 
have given the old pay scales. [ 439-G-H; 440-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 8664 of C 
1997 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.97 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M. W.P. No. 14129 of 1988. 
Vijay Hansaria, Sunil K. Jain, M/s. Jain Hansaria & Co. for the D 
Appellants. 
Ashok K. Sharma, Indra Makwana for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. Special Leave granted. 
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 
E 
of the revised pay scale and designation of the post he was holding. 
F 
In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the appellant the respon-
dent 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 G 
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 : 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
SI. 
Designatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.