The Delhi High Court has issued notice to GAIL (India) Limited in a writ petition challenging the denial of pay protection of the petitioner’s last drawn salary upon joining the public sector undertaking. The case raises significant legal questions concerning the primacy of recruitment policies over recruitment advertisements and the protection of service benefits in public employment.
The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the final order passed by the respondents whereby the benefit of pay protection was refused. According to the petitioner, the denial of pay protection was based solely on a clause in the recruitment advertisement which stated that candidates joining the post would not be entitled to any pay protection.
The petitioner, however, has contended that such reliance on the advertisement clause is legally untenable. It has been argued that another clause of the same advertisement expressly provides that all service benefits are to be governed by the company’s policy in force, as amended from time to time. This, according to the petitioner, clearly indicates that matters relating to pay fixation and pay protection must be regulated strictly in accordance with the recruitment policy and rules framed by the organisation, rather than isolated terms of the advertisement.
Emphasis has been placed on the recruitment policy applicable at the time of appointment, which expressly provides for protection of pay. The petitioner has relied upon the well-settled principle of service law that recruitment rules and policies always prevail over inconsistent conditions contained in recruitment advertisements. It has been submitted that an advertisement is merely a notice inviting applications and cannot override statutory or policy-based service rules governing employment conditions.
The petitioner has further asserted that the respondents had assured grant of pay protection prior to joining, subject to verification of the last pay drawn from the previous employer. On the basis of such assurance, the petitioner joined the respondent organisation, giving rise to a legitimate expectation that pay protection would be granted. The subsequent refusal, it is argued, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees’ Insurance Corporation vs Union of India, wherein it was held that in the event of any conflict between recruitment advertisements and recruitment rules, the recruitment rules shall prevail. The petitioner has additionally alleged discrimination, contending that similarly situated employees have been granted pay protection, while the same benefit has been denied in the present case without any rational basis.
After hearing the matter at the preliminary stage, the Delhi High Court issued notice to GAIL (India) Limited and directed the respondents to file their reply. The Court found the issues raised to be arguable and requiring examination.
The petitioner is represented by Advocate Sharvan Singh Tanwar, who appeared before the Delhi High Court and advanced submissions on behalf of the petitioner. The matter is now pending for further consideration and is expected to have broader implications for service jurisprudence concerning pay protection in public sector employment.