Gauhati High Court
The Regional Manager State Bank Of India ... vs Mrinal Kanti Biswas on 23 February, 2017
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Nelson Sailo
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Writ Appeal No. 320/2015
1. The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Bhangagarh,
Guwahati-5, Assam.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Bhangagarh,
Guwahat-5, Assam.
3. The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Regional Office, Silchar-1,
Dist.-Cachar, Assam.
4. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Badarpur I.E. Branch,
Dist.-Karimganj, Assam.
......Appellants.
Versus
Mrinal Kanti Biswas,
S/O Lt. Makhan Lal Biswas,
Resident of Girish Road, Silchar-3,
PO-Silchar, Dist.-Cachar, Assam.
......Respondent.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
For the Appellants: Mr. S.S. Sharma (Sr. Adv.),
Ms. L. Sarma,
Mr. A. Sharma,
Mr. B.J. Mukherjee. ......Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. I.H. Laskar,
Mr. P.K. Deka,
Mr. M. Biswas,
WA 320/2015 Page 1 of 6
Ms. M.D. Borah.
......Advocates.
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 23rd February, 2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
[Hrishikesh Roy, J.] Although this case is not formally admitted, since the case is listed in the regular hearing list, with the consent of the learned counsel, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, the learned Sr. counsel representing the appellants. The respondent (writ petitioner) is represented by the learned advocate Mr. P.K. Deka.
3. The matter pertains to pay fitment of the writ petitioner in the SBI, where he joined on 28.01.1991 after he secured voluntary retirement from the Indian Air Force (IAF) on 30.11.1987. His pay was fixed as a bank employee initially at Rs.1797/- but later revised to Rs.1680/-. According to the former IAF personal, the fixation of pay was erroneously, made by the bank.
4.1 The last pay drawn by the writ petitioner and fixation of his pay when he joined the bank on 28.01.1991 are as follows:-
".....................
Last Pay Drawn Fixation as on
in IAF (30.11.87) 28.01.91
Basic Pay = Rs.1485/- Basic Pay = Rs.1150/-
CGB = Rs. 60/- DA as on
Rs.1545/- 28.01.97 Rs. 647/-
Rs.1797/-
DA as on
30.11.87
Rs. 119/-
Rs.1664/-
..................................."
WA 320/2015 Page 2 of 6
4.2 But subsequently on 11.06.1994 the fitment of pay was revised in the
following manner:-
"...............................
Last Pay drawn in Army 4th Bipartite if fitted on the 4th Bipartite on the basis
basis of protection of pay of protection of pay +
DA
1 2 3
Rs.1485/- Rs.1600/- B.P. Rs.1075.00
+Rs.60/- (GCB)
Rs.1545/- Pay
Rs.119/- DA Rs.900.43 DA Rs.605.01
Rs.1664/- Rs.2500.43 Rs.1680.01
Sri Biswas should have been fitted as per Column 2 instead he has been fitted at Rs.1150/- + 647.22 Total Rs.1797.22.
....................................."
5. The bank employee received his wages as per his above pay fitment until he retired from service on 30.04.2013. But a few years before retirement, he filed the WP(C) No.3759/2007 to contend that fitment of his basic pay in the SBI at Rs.1150/- was wrong as he drew basic pay in the IAF at Rs.1485/-. Accordingly direction was sought in the writ petition to revise his payable emoluments and to release the differential amount, since his date of his joining SBI, i.e. 28.01.1991.
6. In support of his claim for higher emoluments, the writ petitioner relied on the bank's Circular No.PER/47 OF 1985 dated 16.10.1985 (page-44) and another Circular No.PER/40/87 dated 20.08.1987 (page-47). Under the SBI circular(s), when an ex-serviceman is re-employed in the bank, his emoluments are required to be protected to ensure that the new basic pay plus DA correspond to the basic pay plus DA drawn by him, in the armed forces, whichever is higher.
7. The relevant portion of the two circulars will facilitate a better understanding of their implication and accordingly the same are extracted herein below:-
"Circular No.PER/47 of 1985 dated 10.10.1985 .......................
2. The matter as to how their salaries should be re-fixed under the 4th Bipartite Settlement has been examined by Central Office in consultation with Indian Banks' Association. According to Indian Banks' Association guidelines:WA 320/2015 Page 3 of 6
(a) The pay fixation in the case of ex-servicemen, who joined the Bank's service on or after July 1, 1983 may be made on the basis of protection of pay drawn in the armed forces or at a stage where the new basic pay plus dearness allowance corresponds to the basis pay plus dearness allowance drawn by them in the armed forces, whichever is higher.
......................................"
"Circular No.PER/40/87 dated 20.08.1987 .......................
(i) With effect from 1.7.1983, the pay fixation on re-employment of ex-
servicemen in the Banks would be through protection of the basic pay plus Dearness Allowance drawn by them at the time of their release from the armed forces. The figure of pay plus Dearness Allowance admissible in the Bank will be fixed with reference to this protection and the relevant stage of the basic pay in the scale will be determined after deducting Dearness Allowance admissible in the Bank from the figure protected.
In other words, the pay fixation of ex-servicemen re-employed in the Bank's service on or after 1.7.1983 should be made on the basis of protection of basic pay, dearness allowance last drawn by them in the armed forces and pay in the Bank fixed at a stage where pay plus dearness allowance in the army would correspond to that in the Bank.
.................................................."
8. The writ court referred to the above circular(s) and noted from the bank's letter dated 23.02.2001 that the basic pay upon re-employment of the IAF personal was fixed at Rs.1150/-, but the last basic pay drawn by him in the IAF was Rs.1485/-. Thus the fixation of basic pay by the SBI at a lower level was found to be faulty. On this basis, direction was issued to the employer to re-fix the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs.1485/- and to re-determine the payable amount during his service career (28.01.1991 - 30.04.2013) and to clear his arrear dues, under the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2015 (page-11) in the WP(C) No.3759/2007.
9. Assailing the legality of the direction for re-fixation of the basic pay, the learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.S. Sharma submits that what was intended by the two circular(s) is protection of the emoluments drawn by the IAF personal and not just the individual component of basic pay, as was understood by the learned Judge. The Sr. counsel submits that when the total emoluments drawn by the IAF WA 320/2015 Page 4 of 6 personal was Rs.1664/- as per the last pay drawn by him, fixation of his payable emoluments in the bank at Rs.1680/- being higher, afford adequate protection for the wages drawn by the IAF personal, on his re-employment as a bank clerk.
10. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) submits that there is a requirement to not only protect the total emoluments drawn by the IAF personal but also to protect the individual's basic pay drawn in the IAF. He submits that when the last basic pay drawn by the personal was Rs.1485/-, the fixation of his basic pay should correspond to the last drawn pay and cannot therefore be lesser at Rs.1150/-, as was done on his re- employment as a bank clerk.
11. The protection of last pay drawn for armed forces personal on his re- employment in the bank is intended to offset the possible loss of emoluments on account of varying pay structures in different organisations. The objective of the provision should be understood as protection of the earlier emoluments and cannot be referred to individual components of the emoluments like basic pay, DA, etc. The protection of individual components of emoluments as is suggested by the writ petitioner, will lead to an illogical situation as the payable DA in the IAF at the relevant time was Rs.119/- only as compared to the much higher figure of DA, payable to the bank employees. Therefore, it would be rational to interpret the bank's circular(s) in a manner which will protect the emoluments drawn by a former IAF personal instead of protecting the individual component of his payable emoluments.
12. The pay of the former IAF personal was fixed at Rs.1680/- and this was definitely higher than the last pay drawn by him in the IAF at Rs.1664/-. Therefore, the requirement of fixation of pay of ex-serviceman at a stage which corresponds to that of the last pay and DA drawn, was definitely satisfied in the present case.
13. It cannot also be overlooked that the writ petitioner was paid wages with fixation of his pay at Rs.1680/- during his entire service career from 28.01.1991 to 30.04.2013 and although he made various representations from time to time, the first occasion for him to approach the court was in the year 2007. Thus the WA 320/2015 Page 5 of 6 acceptability of the pay fixation by the bank employee for long many years, must also be taken into account, to determine the merit of the claim.
14. When the bank circular(s) of 16.10.1985 and 20.08.1987 are meant to protect the emoluments of a former IAF personal, it will not be logical to interpret these circulars in a manner which will require protection of individual components of the emoluments like basic pay, DA, etc. This will lead to an absurd situation as pay structure vary from organisation to organisation. As long as the fitment of pay is at a scale which corresponds to or is slightly higher than the last emoluments drawn in the previous organisation, there can be no basis for assuming that an injustice has been done to the re-employed IAF personal.
15. On account of the foregoing discussion, we find merit in the challenge of the appellants and accordingly the direction issued for re-fixation of pay under the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2015 in the WP(C) No.3759/2007 is set aside and quashed. In other words, the fitment of pay for the writ petitioner as a clerk in the SBI is found to be in accordance with the requirement of the circular(s) dated 16.10.1985 and 20.08.1987, respectively.
16. With the above declaration, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated.
JUDGE JUDGE
Roy
WA 320/2015 Page 6 of 6