JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury the learned counsel appearing for the employees association. The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and its Chairman are represented by advocate Mr. S. Dutta. The sponsoring nationalized bank i.e. the United Bank of India (UBI) is represented by advocate Ms. M. Choudhury. The respondent No. 4 is represented by Ms. B. Das, the learned Central Government Counsel. These 2 cases raise common issues amongst the same parties and since both matters are heard analogously, the following judgment will cover the cases. The petitioner association represent the interest of the employees of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank which is under the sponsorship of the UBI. They are aggrieved by denial of Transport Allowance for the employees of the Rural Banks, since similar allowance is provided to the employees of the sponsoring bank. The employees of the Rural Bank were receiving the Transport Allowance until the 7th bipartite settlement in the year 2005 but this was abruptly withdrawn on instruction of the sponsoring bank. 2. Representing the aggrieved employees, advocate Mr. A.D. Choudhury refers to Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 to project that remuneration of the employees of Regional Rural Banks are to be structured with due regard to the salary structure of the employees of comparable stature in similar organization. The counsel relies on the decision in South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Coordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 101 to argue that parity of pay of the employees of the Rural Bank with Nationalized Commercial Bank is required to be maintained, by following the award dated 1.9.1987 granted by the National Industrial Tribunal through Justice Obul Reddi, a former Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Tribunal in this award had declared that the officers and employees of the Regional Rural Banks are entitled to pay parity with officers and other employees of the sponsoring bank in the matter of Pay Scales, allowance and other benefits. In fact the Pay and Allowances of the Rural Bank employees are required to be revised whenever such revision takes place for employees of the Nationalized Bank, as per this award dated 1.9.1987. In fact the Pay and Allowances of the Rural Bank employees are required to be revised whenever such revision takes place for employees of the Nationalized Bank, as per this award dated 1.9.1987. Consequent upon revision of wages of the employees of the Nationalized Bank, following the Supreme Court decision in South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra) the Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular dated 6.10.2005 to all the Regional Rural Banks directing negotiation by the sponsoring bank for the Pay and Allowances of the employees of the Rural Banks under them. 3. Ms. M. Choudhury advocate appearing for the sponsoring bank i.e. the UBI submits that discontinuances of the Transport Allowance w.e.f. 16.12.2006 was based on the Central Government circular of 6.10.2005. However it is conspicuously stated in, the affidavit of the Chief Manager of the UBI that there is no record of negotiation between the management of the sponsored bank and the management of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank. 4. Representing the management of the Gramin Vikash Bank, advocate Mr. S. Dutta submits that discontinuance of the Transport Allowance was ordered by sponsoring bank and on this basis the benefit has been discontinued w.e.f. 16.12.2006. But Mr. Dutta's client could not demonstrate that any negotiation exercise was undertaken, before the decision was taken to discontinue the Transport Allowance for the employees of the Rural Banks. 5. The award of Justice Obul Reddi indicates that employees of the Rural Banks are entitled to pay parity with the employees of the Nationalized Bank and this is also the spirit of the provision of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act. The Apex Court had accorded its approval to me award through its decision in South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra). Therefore undoubtedly the employees of the Rural Banks can't be deprived of Transport Allowance, which admittedly was being granted since long to the employees of the sponsoring bank. 6. According to the petitioner's lawyer, the allowable Transport Allowance is in the range of Rs. 225/- to 275/- p.m. and, this allowance was received by the employees since the inception of the Rural Banks till 2006. But after the 8th and 9th bipartite settlements of 2006-2010, this Transport Allowance was discontinued for the employees of the Rural Banks but it is still being paid to the employees of the Nationalized Bank. 225/- to 275/- p.m. and, this allowance was received by the employees since the inception of the Rural Banks till 2006. But after the 8th and 9th bipartite settlements of 2006-2010, this Transport Allowance was discontinued for the employees of the Rural Banks but it is still being paid to the employees of the Nationalized Bank. Therefore the pay parity envisaged by the Tribunal's award and the decision in the South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra) have not been maintained amongst the employees of the Rural Bank vis-à-vis the staff of the Nationalized Bank. 7. While the respondents contend that the Transport Allowance was discontinued on the basis of the Central Government circular of 6.10.2005 what is glaring is that decision on the allowance are to be taken by the sponsored bank through negotiation with the Rural Banks under their cover. But here the respondents have failed to demonstrate that any such negotiation had taken place between the concerned banks. Therefore it is obvious that the discontinuance of the Transport Allowance (assuming it could be discontinued) was not done through due process. 8. Since the withdrawal of the Transport Allowance will lead to disparity in the emoluments received by employees of the Rural Bank vis-à-vis their counterparts in the sponsoring Nationalized Banks, I am of the view that direction given by the authorities of the U.B.I. on 25.10.2006 to the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank can't be sustained. Consequently the concerned banks are ordered to negotiate the issue with each other in terms of the Central Government circular dated 6.10.2005. While a fresh decision may be taken, due regard must be given to the award dated 1.9.1987 of the National Industrial Tribunal and also the judgment of the Apex Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra). Until a negotiated decision is taken, for the time being, the benefit of Transport Allowance should be continued for the employees of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank provided the same is being paid to the employees of the sponsoring Bank i.e. the U.B.I. With the aforesaid direction, both the cases are disposed of without any order on cost.