Patna High Court - Orders
Anirudh Kumar Yadav & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 July, 2014
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.3040 of 2014 (8) dt.02-07-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3040 of 2014
======================================================
Anirudh Kumar Yadav & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi (A.S.G.)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 02-07-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Uttar Bihar Graim Bank.
The petitioners were initially appointed as Clerk cum Cashier in Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Purnea in the year 1980. They were promoted as OJM Scale I on different dates in the year 1989 and 1990. They were granted pay scale in view of recommendation of National Industrial Tribunal Award.
It appears that the said pay scale was withdrawn by circular dated 12.9.2000 and by subsequent circular dated 27.9.2000, a direction was issued for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners. The said recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioners as well as re-fixation of their salary in a lower scale was challenged in C.W.J.C. No.10504 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.4768 of 2002 unsuccessfully, which were dismissed by order dated 17.2.2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred Patna High Court CWJC No.3040 of 2014 (8) dt.02-07-2014 2 L.P.A. No.227 of 2003 and L.P.A. No.207 of 2003. The Division Bench was of the view that it was the respondent Bank which has fixed the pay scale on their own and not on any misrepresentation of the petitioners and as such the recovery was not sustainable in law. The Division Bench further observed that the pay scale existing then should be restored. It appears from the order of the Division Bench as well as pleadings on record that on account of poor financial position of the Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the same was merged with Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (respondent no.4) in the year 2008. After merger, the Bank vide its resolution dated 29.6.2011 decided that the pay scale of the employees is being re-fixed with retrospective effect but due to poor financial condition of the Bank the actual payment in the revised scale would be made effective with effect from 1.4.2011. It is relevant to state herein that Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank in terms of order of this Court did not interfere with the pay scale as existing prior to circular dated 20.9.2000. Further more, the resolution dated 29.6.2011 was also not a subject matter of challenge in the writ petition which was filed in the year 2000 and 2002. However, taking note of the subsequent development, the Division Bench as such did not enter into merit of the resolution dated 29.6.2011 and granted liberty to the employees to challenge the same if they are Patna High Court CWJC No.3040 of 2014 (8) dt.02-07-2014 3 aggrieved by the same. The petitioners again moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5685 of 2013 praying therein to pay the arrears of differential amount of salary for the period from 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2011 which was disposed of by order dated 9.4.2013 with liberty to each of the petitioners to file their separate representations with all supporting documents before the respondent no.5. It was further observed that if such separate representations are filed on behalf of each of the petitioners with all supporting documents, the respondent no.5 or any other competent authority of the respondent Bank would consider and decide their claims separately by reasoned and speaking order.
It appears that the representation filed by the petitioners has been disposed of by the Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, respondent no.5, by order dated 4.11.2013 (Annexure-7) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of arrears of differential amount of salary for the period from October, 2000 to March, 2011. While rejecting the claim of the petitioners, respondent No.5 observed that the resolution dated 29.6.2011 has been made after merger of Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, which was erstwhile employer of the petitioners, with Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank in the year 2008. Further more, no fixation was made by the Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank and as such no relief as founded on the Patna High Court CWJC No.3040 of 2014 (8) dt.02-07-2014 4 basis of circular dated 29.6.2011 was subject matter of dispute in Letters Patent Appeal. However, keeping in view of weak financial position of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, a resolution has been adopted to give higher pay scale notionally to the petitioners from before, but the monetary benefit would be granted only from 1.4.2011.
The employer is empowered to fix wages and salary of its employees depending upon its financial position. In view of the weak financial position, the Bank took resolution to grant higher pay scale notionally from retrospective effect, but granted actual monetary benefit from the subsequent date. If there is valid reason for such fixation, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with such policy decision. In the instant case, the respondents have given reasons for granting higher scale with monetary benefits from 1.4.2011, which I do not find it to be unreasonable. As such, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. This writ application is dismissed.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/-
U