Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1280 (PAT)

Mahendra Badal v. Union Of India

2007-08-03

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Petitioners are employees of now Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger. They have challenged the communication dated 3.7.2006 which is contained in annexure-10 to the writ application. By virtue of this communication the General Manager has informed all the Branches of the Bank not to pay certain allowances and facilities to the employees. Petitioners term the decision as arbitrary. 2. Contentions of petitioners are that by virtue of certain decisions given by the Apex Court salary etc. of the employees of Gramin Banks were ordered to be made at par with the sponsor bank. They contend that due to judicial intervention parity in the pay scale etc. was brought about. This was given statutory status and implemented by Central Government of India by issuing necessary notification in this regard while exercising powers under sec. 17(1) of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. Petitioners have brought on record various evidence and communications in support of the above facts but then basically that is not the dispute in the present case. The main background which has given rise to the present litigation is that the management of the respondent bank after amalgamation of three different rural banks reviewed their working. It was through this review that the new management discovered some anomalies in the payment being made to the employees of certain allowances/facilities/ benefits to a particular bank only i.e. Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank. 3. The matter was referred to sponsor bank for clarification and guidance in this regard. The sponsor bank was after examining the issue communicated their opinion and this opinion of the sponsor bank was considered by the Board of Directors of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The Board of Directors after examining all aspect of the matter came to an opinion that the salary, allowances and other benefits has to be strictly in terms of the directions of the Government of India, NABARD and the guidelines of the sponsor-bank. They came to this conclusion that payment to employees of only Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank of computer increment, transport allowances, conveyance expenses and H.R.A. on production of rent receipt/capital cost basis was misplaced and were stopped from the month of July, 2006. Staff concerned were made liable to refund these extra payments. They came to this conclusion that payment to employees of only Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank of computer increment, transport allowances, conveyance expenses and H.R.A. on production of rent receipt/capital cost basis was misplaced and were stopped from the month of July, 2006. Staff concerned were made liable to refund these extra payments. Based on the decision of the Board of Directors the communication contained in annexure-10 dated 3.7.2006 was issued and this communication is the impugned order in the present case. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that the action of the bank is in conflict with the notification which had been issued by the Government of India under section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. He submits that the pay and allowances which were being given to them was in confirmity with these statutory notification. That being so it was not open to the bank in question to undo the same by administrative order. He further submits that the benefit in question was extended to the employees of the bank after a conscious decision in this regard and a notification issued which is contained in annexures 8 and 8/1. The benefit extended in the year, 2002 is suddenly being sought to be withdrawn without any notice or show cause to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents however justify their action and submit that the decision taken is not in conflict with any law or legal decision in this regard. The background under which the impugned order came to be issued was because after merger of three different Gramin Banks into one entity, it was discovered that Bhagalpur Banka Gramin Kshetriya Bank employees were getting certain benefits over and above other similarly situated employees in other Kshetriya Gramin Banks. Since there has to be uniformity in the pay scale and benefits with regard to all the employees the matter was examined at the highest level and it was after due deliberation the impugned order contained in annexure-10 came to be passed. The decision was required to bring uniformity in working and entitlements of the employees under one organisation. 6. Since there has to be uniformity in the pay scale and benefits with regard to all the employees the matter was examined at the highest level and it was after due deliberation the impugned order contained in annexure-10 came to be passed. The decision was required to bring uniformity in working and entitlements of the employees under one organisation. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the actual payment and benefits which is payable to the employees of Gramin Banks was examined by NABARD which is the modal authority and it is based on their recommendation contained in circular dated 2.3.1993 that modality of such benefits had been worked out. They also submit that the report of NABARD was based on a directive of Government of India. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that because of the intervention of Hon ble Supreme Court the Government of India took a conscious decision that salary and allowances of RRB employees would be determined by Government of India but so far as other allowances like T.A., HRA, Computer allowance etc. the same would be determined by the sponsor bank. In fact, the notification dated 23.4.1998 issued by Government of India authorised the sponsor bank to exercise full managerial and operational control in such matters. The respondents in their counter affidavit have brought the recommendation of NABARD alongwith notification dated 23.4.98 as annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit. 7. The respondents in the counter affidavit have further gone on to state that the officers and staff of the erstwhile Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank were enjoying this benefit contrary to the guidelines in existence. This fact came to light when three different Gramin Banks got merged into one body. They point out further that due to some litigation earlier which then travelled to Hon ble Supreme Court. Hon ble Supreme Court has vide order dated 18.8.2003 has stayed the order regarding increment on account of computarisation. It further stayed recovery of what had already been paid to the employees to that extent the order of Hon ble Supreme Court will govern that issue alone. 8. Taking the two rival submissions this Court comes to an opinion that the stand taken by the respondents seems to be correct. It further stayed recovery of what had already been paid to the employees to that extent the order of Hon ble Supreme Court will govern that issue alone. 8. Taking the two rival submissions this Court comes to an opinion that the stand taken by the respondents seems to be correct. The employees of Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank had conferred upon themselves certain benefits which were not available to them in terms of annexure-A which is the guidelines issued by NABARD in this case. When three different banks, namely, Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Begusarai Kshetriya Gramin Bank merged in Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank this anomaly was discovered. Out of three banks, employees of only one bank i.e. Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank were the beneficiaries of these allowances. If on discovery the respondent authority took care of the anomalies by issuing annexure-10, they cannot be faulted for the same. It is obvious that the management cannot allow two different standards and parametres to exist in matters of payment of salary and other allowances under one organisation. The decision as communicated in annexure-10 was taken after due deliberation at various levels and it is not a knee jerk reaction. It is a conscious decision taken after due consultation with one and all. No doubt employees of Regional Rural Bank have been extended parity in the matter of salary by virtue of the Hon ble Supreme Court direction and thereafter the notification which have-been issued by Government of India, but it is also a fact that with regard to other benefits and allowances guidelines was issued by NABARD on the direction of the Government of India. If the employees of Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank were extended these benefits earlier by their former Chairman then it was done without the authority of law. The benefit extended without due authority therefore is liable for correction and this correction has been brought about by issuing annexure-10 in the present case. 9. This Court, therefore, in the given facts and legal situation is unable to accept the basic submission of the petitioners that the impugned order contained under annexure-10 is an arbitrary order and in conflict with any statutory rule or regulation. 10. The impugned decision was more of a course correction rather than effort to snatch away benefits from a set of employees. 10. The impugned decision was more of a course correction rather than effort to snatch away benefits from a set of employees. This Court, therefore does not find any merit in the present writ application. This Court clarifies that in so far as the computer allowance is concerned that issue would be governed by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court which may be passed in this regard in SLP(C) 8798 of 2003. 11. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.