Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 570 (BOM)

ARVIND GANESH KARNIK v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

2009-04-27

D.K.DESHMUKH, R.S.MOHITE

body2009
P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. The petitioners who are ex-employees of the Reserve Bank of India are aggrieved by Circular dated 10.10.2008 by which Reserve Bank of India had withdrawn its earlier circular dated 1.9.2003. By circular dated 1.9.2003, the pension of the petitioners was revised and updated from the year 2002. Admittedly, the petitioners and other similarly situated ex-employees of the Reserve Bank of India were also paid according to the updated pension. The case of the petitioners is that the earlier circular dated 1.9.2003 has been withdrawn and another circular dated 10.10.2008 has been issued by the Reserve Bank of India not on its own but only because of the directions issued by the Govt. of India. According to the petitioners, the Govt. of India has no power to issue such directions to the Reserve Bank of India. According to the learned counsel for the Reserve Bank of India, the only reason why they have withdrawn the circular dated 1.9.2003 is the directions issued by the Govt. of India directing them to withdraw the circular dated 1.9.2003. According to the learned counsel for the Reserve Bank of India, the Government of India has issued that direction for withdrawal of the circular dated 1.9.2003 to the Reserve Bank of India under Section 7 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. According to the petitioners, power under Section 7 of the Act is not available to the Govt. of India. In any case, the directions which takes away the benefit which is already extended to the petitioners could not have been taken away by the Reserve Bank of India without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. From the record, it appears to be an admitted position that by circular dated 1.9.2003, the pension of the petitioners and other similarly situated ex-employees was updated from the year 2002 and the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were getting pension at the updated rate. The only reason for withdrawing the circular dated 1.9.2003 is the directions issued by the Govt. of India to the Reserve Bank of India to withdraw the circular dated 1.9.2003. The result of the circular is that, the benefit which was extended to the petitioners and other employees since the year 2002 stands withdrawn with retrospective effect. The only reason for withdrawing the circular dated 1.9.2003 is the directions issued by the Govt. of India to the Reserve Bank of India to withdraw the circular dated 1.9.2003. The result of the circular is that, the benefit which was extended to the petitioners and other employees since the year 2002 stands withdrawn with retrospective effect. Admittedly, at no point of time, they were given an opportunity of being heard by the Reserve Bank of India or the Govt. of India before doing this. In our opinion, the reason which has been given in the communication of the Govt. of India that there is a amendment in the RBI pension regulation does not appears to be proper. It is also not free from doubt that under Section 7 of the Act, in the present case, the Govt. of India has power to issue such directions to the Reserve Bank of India. However, we do not propose to decide that issue, as in the present case, undisputedly benefit which was enjoyed by the petitioners from the year 2002 was withdrawn without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The circular impugned in the petition is therefore, liable to be set aside. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. ORDER (a) Circular dated 10.10.2008 is set aside. (b) Within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners shall make representation to the Govt. of India with a copy to the Reserve Bank of India pointing out to them that they are making representation against the directions issued by the Govt. of India to the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioners would be entitled to point that Govt. of India does not have power to issue such directions under Section 7 of the Act. The Govt. of India after receiving representation shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and then dispose of the representation by a speaking order. The order shall be communicated to the petitioners and the Reserve Bank of India. In case, the order goes against the petitioners, the Reserve Bank of India shall not reduce the pension of the petitioners for a period of eight weeks from the date on which the order is communicated to the petitioners. The order shall be communicated to the petitioners and the Reserve Bank of India. In case, the order goes against the petitioners, the Reserve Bank of India shall not reduce the pension of the petitioners for a period of eight weeks from the date on which the order is communicated to the petitioners. It is clarified that upon setting aside the circular dated 10.10.2008, the petitioners would be entitled to pension as per the circular dated 1.9.2003 from October, 2008. The learned counsel for the Reserve Bank of India states that for clearing the arrears, the Reserve Bank of India will need four weeks time and that within a period of four weeks the arrears will be given to the petitioners. Statement accepted. The petitioners will make representation through their association. Petition disposed off.