Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India & Ors vs Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr on 23 August, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
SAW No.2021/2011
Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL [W] NO.2021/2011
(Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr.)
Date of Judgment : 23rd August 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
HON'BLE MR. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II, J.
Mr.Kuldeep Mathur for the appellants
Mr.M.R. Singhvi Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vinay Jain and
Mr. Mohit Singhvi for the respondent.
Mr.G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.S. Choudhary for
the applicant.
*****
BY THE COURT:
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2011 as passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.4366/2005 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondents seeking directions that the appellant would formulate and implement a pension scheme for the employees of Regional Rural Banks ('RRBs'). The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with reference to and while relying upon the order dated 22.03.2011 as passed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.20034/2003: All India Regional Rural Bank Employees' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein, the identical issue was decided in favour of the similarly placed employees.
In the impugned order dated 15.09.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court has directed as under:-
SAW No.2021/2011
Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 2
"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take steps to ensure that the modalities are worked out for a pension scheme in the line with the pension scheme formulated for the employees of the 58 nationalized banks in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition with such changes as would be appropriate and keeping in line with the present circumstances, including such other relevant criteria that could be reasonably agreed upon in consultation with the employees. Since the petition is pending since the year 2005, the respondents are directed to expedite the process and implement the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
In brief, the relevant background aspects could be noticed as follows: The respondent No.1 herein (the writ petitioner No.1) is said to be a registered society of retired employees of the RRBs in the State of Rajasthan. The writ petition leading to this appeal was filed stating grievance against inaction of the appellant in implementing the bi-partite Settlement dated 29.10.1993 as entered into between the Management of 58 Nationalized Banks and the Association of their workmen. It was submitted that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union & South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation & Ors.: (2001) 4 SCC 101, as and when the pay structure of the Nationalized Commercial Banks would get revised on the basis of any bi-partite settlement, the Central Government was under
obligation to take a decision so far the employees of the RRBs were concerned; and such employees of RRBs were required to be treated on equal footings and at par with the employees of National Commercial Banks as regards the pay, allowances and other benefits. The writ petitioners referred to the history of the matter where, on the issues relating to the pay structure of employees of RRBs and particularly the claim of parity by such employees vis-a-vis SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 3 the employees of Nationalized Commercial Banks (the sponsor Banks for the RRBs) ultimately led to constitution of a National Industrial Tribunal ('NIT') consisting of the retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court as Chairman. The writ petitioners also referred to the facts that the NIT held in its award dated 30.04.1990 that the officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of sponsored Banks in the matter of pay scale, allowances and other benefits with effect from 01.09.1987; and thereafter, the Government of India proceeded to constitute an Equation Committee under the notification dated 05.10.1990 who submitted its report on 16.01.1991 pursuant whereto, the Government issued instructions on 22.02.1991 for implementation of the NIT's award and the Equation Committee's recommendations. The petitioners also referred to the fact that National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development ('NABARD') constituted a Working Group for in-depth study of various aspects including issues arising out of implementation of the said award and recommendations of the Committee and ultimately, under the order dated 30.03.1993, NABARD implemented the report of the Working Group as regards equation of posts, extension of allowances and benefits and other miscellaneous matters with necessary changes. It was submitted that this way, the benefits of IV and V bi-partite Settlements relating to the employees of the Nationalized Commercial Banks came to be implemented.
It was submitted that a supplementary settlement was arrived at on 29.10.1993 between the Management of 58 Nationalized Banks and their workmen whereby, the pension scheme was made SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 4 applicable in relation to all the Nationalized Commercial Banks. The writ petitioners-respondents contended that when by the said settlement, pension as retirement benefit was made applicable to all the employees of Nationalized Commercial Banks, in the light of the NIT award and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Central Government was duty bound to implement such pension scheme in RRBs so as to maintain parity in respect of pay structure, other allowances and benefits for the employees and officers of RRBs vis- à-vis their counterparts in Nationalised Banks.
It was pointed out that the writ petitioner society and other retired employees of such RRBs, referred as sponsored banks, filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking such relief of implementation of the pension scheme but were directed to approach the High Court for redressal of the grievances. The writ petitioners-respondents further submitted that raising an identical issue, the aforesaid petition was filed before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court by All India Regional Rural Banks Employees' Association & Ors.; and the same was allowed on 22.03.2011 with directions to the appellant to implement the said Settlement dated 29.10.1993 for the employees of RRBs also on the basis of the ratio of the decision in South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra).
The submissions on behalf of the present appellant before the learned Single Judge had been, inter alia, that the writ petitioners were not entitled to claim implementation of the Settlement dated 29.10.1993 to which, they were not the parties; and that the petition suffered from delay and laches.
SAW No.2021/2011
Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 5 The learned Single Judge has expressed complete agreement with the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in All India Regional Rural Bank Employees' Association case (supra); and, after taking note of the directions given therein and with the observations that no discrimination could be made by the Court to deny the benefit to the member employees of the petitioner society, has issued the directions as noticed at the outset.
The learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Mathur appearing for the appellant attempted to argue with reference to the grounds as taken in this appeal that the referred Settlement of the year 1993 could not have been enforced in relation to the petitioners and in that regard, the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay. However, during the course of submissions, the learned counsel submitted that he has otherwise received a copy of the communication, as said to have been sent by the Ministry of Finance to the Chairman NABARD, for framing of a pension scheme in lieu of the contributory provident fund, as regards the Regional Rural Banks.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr.M.R. Singhvi appearing for the writ petitioners duly supported the order as passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that in this matter, there had not been any question of delay so as to defeat the rights of the employees and the ex-employees of RRBs and then, as per the ratio of the decision in South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra), the appellant cannot suggest that the beneficial settlement in regard to the pension schemes for the employees of Nationalized Commercial Banks would not be implemented by the appellant in regard to the Regional Rural Banks. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 6 Karnataka High Court has dwelt on the issue in sufficient detail and has found the similarly placed petitioners entitled to the claimed relief; and the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in granting the similar and identical reliefs in the order impugned.
So far the communication as referred by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the learned counsel Mr. Singhvi has stated serious reservations in regard to the same and submitted that in the first place, such communication deserves no cognizance by this Court as it had neither been the part of record before the learned Single Judge nor could be said to be of compliance of the orders as passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and so also by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned counsel voiced the apprehension that by way of such communication, the Government of India is rather trying to scuttle the issue and to avoid proper implementation of the orders of the Courts.
The learned Senior Advocate Mr. G. R. Punia has put in appearance in the matter with reference to an application (IA No.10984/2012) as moved by All India Regional Rural Bank Employees' Association for impleadment as party respondent with the submissions that the applicant association is the apex organization of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks and has a direct interest in the matter. It is also submitted that in fact, the applicant association was the petitioner before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2011. It has also been informed during the course of submissions that an intra- court appeal filed against the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2011 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court on SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 7 05.06.2012, of course, for not curing the defects.
After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made and having examined the material on record with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that this appeal remains bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed.
Before taking up any other aspect of the matter, it appears appropriate to dispose of the aspect relating to the communication as shown and placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of submissions. In our view, the rights of the parties to the litigation before us are to be governed by the final order as passed by the learned Single Judge, which we are going to affirm in this judgment. Thus, the said communication cannot carry any such relevance as to operate prejudicial to the rights of the writ petitioners-respondents contrary to the writ issued by the Court. For the present purpose, suffice is to observe that we have only taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The said communication neither requires any pronouncement in this appeal nor are we required to dilate upon the same any further.
So far the merits of the case are concerned, in our opinion, it is no more res integra that while deciding on the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, the Central Government is duty bound to maintain parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the spirit of award of the National Industrial Tribunal. In the case of South Malabar Gramin Bank (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the history of the issues relating to the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks and as to how the same were dealt with from time to SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 8 time; and pronounced on the connotations of parity in the given context and on the duties of the Central Government in the following:-
"....In view of the definition of the aforesaid expression "parity"
and in the context in which the Tribunal came to hold that the employees of the Regional Rural Banks would be entitled to claim a parity with the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks, the Union Government, while exercising its power under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 would be guided by the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal and will not be justified in deciding the pay structure for the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, which would bring in disparity between the two groups of employees, even though there may be a slight variation in the pay structure. As has been stated earlier, the aforesaid direction to maintain parity was duly given effect to and the employees of the Regional Rural Banks were given the pay structure applicable to their counterparts in the Nationalised Commercial Banks w.e.f. 1987, though subsequently in 1992 and 1997, there had been revision in the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. Though, we have upheld the contention of the appellant with regard to the power of the Central Government to decide the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, yet there cannot be any doubt that in so deciding, the Central Government would be duty bound to maintain the parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddi decided and as was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987." Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Central Government to the decide the question about salary of the employees of the RRBs consequent to the VI bi-partite Settlement in relation to the employees of the Nationalized Commercial Banks; and even further directed that such decision ought be taken in any future revision of pay structure of the employees of Nationalized Commercial Bank. The Hon'ble Court ordained,-
"16. We also further direct that for maintaining the parity between the employees of the commercial banks and the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, the said Union Government shall decide the question as to what would be the salary of the employees of the RRBs. subsequent to the 6th bipartite settlement having been given effect to, in case of employees of the commercial banks and with effect from what date and the benefit flowing from such decision be given to the RRB employees. The decision in question shall be taken within a period of six months from today.
17. Hereafter, as and when the pay structure of the employees of the nationalised commercial banks get revised on the basis of any SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 9 bipartite settlement, the Union Government should take a decision so far as the employees of the Regional Rural Banks are concerned, within a reasonable time and bearing in mind the conclusions, we have already arrived at, so that the so-called parity could be maintained."
In the referred order dated 22.03.2011, the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court, again, referred to the history pertaining to the pay structures of the employees of RRBs and then, opined that the endeavour undertaken by NIT and the views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not be considered restricted as if to bring about parity in the pay, allowances and other benefits only; and held that it would necessarily include the pensionary benefits as well. The learned Judge said,-
"6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the endeavour undertaken by the National Industrial Tribunal and the opinions expressed by the Supreme Court was to be restricted to bringing about parity in the pay, allowances and other benefits of the employees of RRBs on par with the employees of the sponsor banks. It necessarily would include pensionary benefits as well. It is patent that the employees of the RRBs would derive greater benefit if there is a pension scheme in lieu of the Employees Contributory Provident Fund and the Scheme thereunder. But, this would require the Central Government to pass an order apart from the modalities of any such pension scheme being worked out by the management of the RRBs. In the present scenario, when the management is reluctant to formulate any such scheme and pleads that there is no obligation on its part to extend such benefit to the employees of the RRBs, it would be necessary for this court to direct the Central Government to pass appropriate orders in order to set right the anomaly pertaining to the retirement benefits, availed by the RRBs vis-a-vis the employees of the sponsor banks. It would certainly be justified if the RRBs are exempted from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 to bring about parity in pension and other benefits. The effort of the National Industrial Tribunal and the repeated directions of the apex court would not be completely implemented unless this is also carried out........"
In our view, the conclusion as arrived at in the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2011 by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, as relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is perfectly in accord with law. When as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant, while deciding on the pay SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 10 structure of the employees of the RRBs, is under obligation to maintain reasonable parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in manner and effect, there appears no reason as to why the same principles would not apply to the matter of pensionary benefits too. Rather, maintaining of such parity in regard to the pensionary benefits appears necessary as an integral part of the overall structure relating to the pay, allowances and other benefits. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge of this Court has not committed any error in following the aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court and in issuing similar nature directions. Hence, there is no force in this appeal.
So far the application as moved by the All India Regional Rural Employees' Association is concerned, suffice is to observe that the said applicant had not been a party to the writ petition. In any case, its stand is not in conflict with the stand of writ petitioners- respondents and in the present appeal, as we are declining to interfere with the order as passed by the learned Single Judge, there appears no reason to grant any indulgence to the applicant to make any further submission in the matter.
However, before parting, we deem it appropriate to observe that as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the appellant was required to ensure working out of the modalities for a pension scheme for the writ petitioners in the line with that formulated for the employees of 58 Nationalized Banks in terms of the Settlement dated 29.10.1993, of course, with such changes as would be appropriate and keeping in view the present circumstances including such other relevant criteria as could be reasonably agreed SAW No.2021/2011 Union of India Vs. Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti & Anr. 11 upon in consultation with the employees. The said requirements were to be carried out within a period of six months. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.09.2011; and about 11 months have passed by. There had not been any interim order in this appeal. In any case, looking to the nature of relief granted and the affected persons i.e., the pensioners, it is necessary that the requirements of the order as passed by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by us, are carried out without any further delay for which, we grant three months' time as an outer limit.
With the observations and requirements foregoing, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK/mamta S.No.21