Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs R.K.G.B.Officer Association on 12 January, 2010
Author: Gyan Sudha Misra
Bench: Chief Justice, R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
L.P.A.No.779 of 2004
With
I.A.No.01 of 2010
Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank..... ..............Appellant
VERSUS
Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers
Association and others............................ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Appellant : Mrs. M.M.Pal
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Kumar
9. 12.1.10. I.A.No.01 of 2010 This is an application for issuance of notices upon respondent no.2, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (in short 'NABARD') as also respondent no.3, Union of India, Ministry of Finance. However, from the order dated 5.1.2006, it appears that notices had already been issued by the Court to respondents 2 and 3 but in spite of the same, the respondents 2 and 3 had not chosen to appear. Besides this, respondents 2 and 3 are formal respondents and, therefore, fresh service of notice upon respondents 2 and 3, in our view, is not required to be issued. If the appellant is banking upon any order passed by the respondent no.2, NABARD, it was the duty of the appellant to produce the relevant document. Hence, fresh service of notice upon respondents 2 and 3 is not required to be issued. This Interlocutory application is, therefore, rejected. L.P.A.No.779 of 2004
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2744 of 1995 (R) by which the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1, namely, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers Association had been allowed whereby the orders dated 2 22.10.1993 and 6.5.1995 passed by the appellant were quashed and set aside. Consequently, it was directed to re-imburse the expenses to the members of the respondents-association on account of the travelling undertaken by the officers by way of conveyance allowance.
The matter which emerges out of a writ petition is that the respondent-officers' association of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (in short "RKGB') had filed a writ petition for quashing a letter as annexed as Annexure 10 issued by the appellant, RKGB by virtue of which representation filed by the petitioner-respondent no.1 herein was rejected holding therein that the Management of RKBG had neither denied nor withdrawn the benefit of conveyance allowance to the officers' association of the respondent no.1 but actual reimbursement of expenses on conveyance could be allowed in favour of the members of the association. Merely the mode and basis of payment towards re- imbursement of conveyance allowance had been changed by the appellant-Management of RKGB.
Learned Single Judge having scrutinized the matter was pleased to notice that the appellant RKGB had denied conveyance allowance to the members of the association of respondent no.1 herein which prompted them to file writ petition before this Court, Vide C.W.J.C.No.3632 of 1993 (R) and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.4.1995 whereby order passed by the RKGB dated 20.10.1993 denying the conveyance allowance to the members of the respondents-association was quashed and set aside. However, the learned Single Judge directed the Chairman of the appellant, RKGB to consider the matter afresh after granting opportunity to the representative of the respondents-association and to pass a fresh speaking order. In view of this order, the appellant permitted respondents-association to address on the point and thereafter passed an order stating that the members of the respondents-association had 3 not been denied the conveyance allowance and merely the mode and manner of re-imbursement was changed in the sense that the respondents had been directed to furnish proof of actual payment of the travelling expenses on the basis of which the conveyance allowance was claimed. This fact compelled the members of the respondents-association to file a fresh writ petition, vide C.W.J.C.No.2744 of 1995 (R), out of which this appeal arises, wherein members of the respondents-association reiterated that they are entitled to conveyance allowance which has been denied to them, by a circular issued by the RKGB dated 20.10.1993 stipulating therein that they will be entitled to re-imbursement of the conveyance allowance only if the proof of actual travelling expenses is furnished by the members of the association. The respondents-association, therefore, challenged the circular as also the order by which conveyance allowance was denied. It was stated that the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge after recording the findings that the respondent-appellant herein was not justified in issuing the circular by changing the mode in any manner regarding confirment of the benefit of re-imbursement of expenses incurred on travelling in case of members of the respondents-association. Specific reason was assigned by the leaned Single Judge to the effect that the Sponsoring Bank of the appellant is the respondent no.2, i.e, Bank of India. If the sponsoring Bank would have made any change in the mode and manner with regard to re-imbursement of expenses on travelling undertaken by the officers of the sponsoring bank, then a circular issued by the appellant Bank changing the mode and manner of re- imbursement could have been said to be justified in case of the officers of the appellant bank also. But if the said mode has not been changed by the sponsoring bank, then the appellant bank had no authority to issue a circular and introduce a condition for re- 4 imbursement. Taking this view, learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the respondent against which this appeal has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellant RKGB reiterated the submission which had been advanced before the learned Single Judge and tried to impress upon that the Board of the appellant Bank has never withdrawn the facility of the re-imbursement of the conveyance allowance claimed by the respondents-association but merely mode and manner of re-imbursement was changed in the sense that proof of actual travelling expenses had to be produced.
It was submitted by the respondents that the appellant-Bank is guided by the policy decision taken by the NABARD and the Rural Development Banks are guided by the policy decision of the NABARD and if the NABARD had not taken any policy decision as to the specific mode of re-imbursement of travelling allowance, then a fresh condition could not be allowed to be introduced by the authority of the appellant RKGB. It was further informed by the counsel of the officers association, respondent no.1 that the National Tribunal was constituted in pursuance of the decision of the Central Government which was directed to record recommendation with respect to the service condition of the employees of the Rural Development Bank and accordingly, a decision was taken in the matter relating to reimbursement of traveling expenses which never stipulated any condition of production of proof for reimbursement . Therefore, in absence of any change in the policy decision a new condition specifying the mode and manner of payment of the conveyance allowance could not have been introduced by the appellant Rural Development Bank, i.e. RKGB. Counsel for the appellant however, refuted the contention of the counsel for the respondents association by relying upon the proceeding of a State Level Forum constituted 5 under the direction of the NABARD reflecting therein the introduction of new mode for re-imbursement of the conveyance allowance. However, the counsel failed to produce any order pursuent to the State Level Committee report being issued either by the sponsoring bank, i.e. Bank of India or any guideline by the NABARD to the appellant bank enacting the specific mode in which travelling allowance had to be re-imbursed but, in fact, as already indicated hereinbefore, the appellant Bank initially had refused even to grant travelling allowance which prompted them to file writ petition in the year 1993 and only when the writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 4.4.1995 that facility was extended to respondent but thereafter another impediment was put in the way of respondents- association to have conveyance allowance by putting an additional condition of the provision of specific mode of re-imbursement of conveyance allowance. However, the learned Single Judge appears to be justified in setting aside the new mode adopted by the bank by holding that if the sponsoring Bank had not itself introduced any condition for re-imbursement of the conveyance allowance, then the Rural Gramin Bank could not on its own have introduced a new condition for re-imbursement of the conveyance allowance as the Rural Gramin Bank on its own have no authority to take policy decision or denied service condition of the officers of the Bank. If the counsel for the appellant had succeeded in producing any order to the effect that it was authorized to introduce the condition, the matter would have been set on different footing but if the respondents-Bank, in order to get over the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has directed to consider the representation for grant of conveyance allowance, issued a circular to circumvent the order of the court by putting in a condition that the conveyance allowance will be paid only if a new condition which was introduced in the format of 6 circular was complied with by them the same was obviously issued merely to get over the order of the court so that they could not be hauled up for contempt. But even if we ignore this aspect, the position remains unchanged in the sense that the appellant Gramin Bank on its own could not have added any condition or substracted, prejudicial to the interest of respondents-association by introducing new condition for denying the conveyance allowance and if it proposed to do so, it obviously had to be guided by the policy decision of the sponsoring bank or the order of the National Tribunal. It was for the National Tribunal to consider the mode and manner of re-imbursement of conveyance allowance and if neither any condition was introduced by the National Tribunal, nor by the sponsoring bank, we fail to understand as to how the appellant bank could exercise the authority and issue a circular. As already stated, in our view, this was clearly done with the motive to get over the order passed by the leaned Single Judge passed in the year 1995 when it had directed to consider the plea of the respondents-association for re-imbursement of the conveyance allowance.
In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, we find no substance in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier obviously will stand vacated, in view of the dismissal of the appeal.
(Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J) ( R. R. Prasad, J. ) ND/