THIS PAGE IS UNDER MAINTENANCE
   
  KA BANK NONGKYNDONG OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
Navigation
  Writ Petitions
 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ( CIVIL) No.     OF 2008
 
IN THE MATTER OF: -
 
1.      Co-ordination committee of
         South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees
        Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank
        Officersâ’ Federation
         represented by its Convener
        K.M.Achuthankutty
        Central Office, P.B.No.16
         Malappuram
        Malappuram District,
         KERALA STATE
     
2.      South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union
Represented by its General Secretary
K.M.Mohankumar      
P.B.No.16
Malappuram
Malappuram District
KERALA STATE
 
3.      South Malabar Gramin Bank 
         Officersâ’ Federation
represented by its General Secretary
K.G.Madanan  
P.B.No.16
Malappuram
Malappuram District
KERALA STATE                                                         ------- Petitioners
 
Versus
 
1.  Union of India 
represented by the Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs
Banking Division
Jeevan Deep Building
Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001
 
 
2.   The South Malabar Gramin Bank,
Represented by its Chairman,
Head Office, Up Hill, Malappuram,
KERALA STATE, Pin 676 505.                                   --- Respondents
 
 
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
 
To
 
The Honâ’ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
 
Humble petition of the petitioner
 
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
 
1.         The petitioners, Co-ordination committee of   South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation, South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation, file this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to respondents for proper implementation of the directions of this Honâ’ble Court to maintain parity of the pay structure of employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks in India with pay structure of the employees and officers of the nationalized commercial banks in conformity with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act as envisaged in the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999 dated 31-1-2001 ( Reported as South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101) and in the Award dated 30/04/1990 of the National Industrial Tribunal headed by Justice Obul Reddy.
 
 
2.         This Honâ’ble Court in the Judgment in South Malabar Gramin Bankâ’s case (supra) while directing the Central Government to exercise powers under Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act 1976 ( herein after referred to as the Act ) to determine the pay structure of the employees of Regional Rural Banks ( herein after referred to as RRBs) observed that if the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking into account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks.
 
3.         The petitioners are the co-ordination of committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation, South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation. The subject matter in this writ petition relates to the rights of the employees and officers of   all the Regional Rural Banks in India. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 which culminated in the Judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union reported as (2001) 4 S.C.C 101.
 
4.         The present Writ Petition relates to the rights of all the employees and officers of the RRBs in India. The petitioner seeks directions from this Honâ’ble Court to the respondents to implement in toto the pay structure of the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank to the employees and officers of RRBs as per the directions of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101.
 
5.         The Regional Rural Banks (RRBs') were established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 with a view to develop the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs. Every Regional Rural Bank is sponsored by a commercial bank called as 'sponsor bank'. There were 196  Regional Rural Banks established all over the country and most of them are sponsored by various pubic sector banks such as State Bank of India, Associate Banks and Nationalised commercial Banks. Now the number being reduced to 92 on amalgamation, State wise and Sponsor Bank wise. Under Section 17(1) of the Act, the remuneration of officers and other employees appointed by the RRBs shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government.
 
6.         In the year 1984, one Sri G.S. Kaushik and All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association filed Writ Petition ( Civil) No.132 of 1984 before this Hon'ble Court . Some other petitions were also filed by another set of RRB employees. In the writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court directions were sought against Government of India and other authorities to fix the emoluments of the employees of RRBs in conformity with the laid down principles of equal pay for equal work and industry cum-region formula that are well accepted principles in wage determination in industrial jurisprudence. A direction was sought to bring about parity in pay, allowances and emoluments between the employees of RRBs inter se and with those of employees of Nationalised commercial Banks (hereinafter called the NCBs for short) who had sponsored various RRBs.
 
7.         At the time of filing of the above said writ petitions, the Reserve Bank of India had a consultative status in the matter of wage determination under RRBs Act which was taken away by subsequent amendment to RRBs Act. The above claim of the petitioners was based on several grounds viz., (a) that both RRBs and its employees and the NCBs and its employees whose principal employer is the Government of India are carrying on the same activities and performing the same nature of duties, (b) that despite this there is a wide disparity between the emoluments paid to the RRB employees sponsored by NCBs and the employees of the NCBs, (c) that besides wide disparities exist inter se between the employees of various RRBs themselves in the matter of pay and allowances. (d) that these inequities and discriminations are being perpetrated under the purported cover of Section 17 of the Act and equation with the employees of State Governments, and (e) that the employees of RRBs are entitled to same salary, allowances and benefits as are admissible to the NCB employees of comparable posts and status.
 
8.         After hearing the said writ petitions, this Honâ’ble Court found merit in the contentions made by the Petitioners and gave an option to the respondents either appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to go into the claims of the RRB employees. The 1st respondent/Union of India appointed a Tribunal. On 1.09.1987 this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following order:
 
'We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The learned counsel for petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal. In view of the above, it is not necessary to pronounce on the questions of law raised in these writ petitions before us. We leave all the contentions open. The Central Government shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal, preferably to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, within four weeks from today. We hope that the Tribunal will pronounce its award as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly'
                       
9.         Pursuant to the directions issued by this Honâ’ble Court in Writ Petition ( Civil) No.132 of 1984 dated 1.09.1987, Government of India by its Resolution No.F.10(21)/87. RRB dated 26.11.1987 appointed the National Industrial Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Justice S.Obul Reddi, Chief Justice (Retd.) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The text of the said resolution read as follows:-
 
"No.F.l0(21)/87 - RRB Whereas the two Writ Petitions (Civil Nos.7149 50 of 1982 and 132 of 1984) were filed in the Supreme Court of India by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gautam and others and Sri G.S.Kaushik and others against, among others, Union of India and Jaipur Naguar Anchalik Gramin Bank, Jaipure, Rajasthan and Union of India and Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Gurgaon, Haryana respectively seeking inter alia, parity with employees of the Nationalised Banks in respect of pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits.
 
1.         Whereas the Central Government had contended before the Supreme Court that both the petitions were misconceived and should be dismissed; and whereas, after hearing both sides, the Supreme Court passed on 1st September, 1987 the following order:
 
“We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The learned counsel for petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal. In view of the above, it is not necessary to pronounce on the questions of law raised in these writ petitions before us. We leave all the contentions open. The Central Government shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal, preferably to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, within four weeks from today. We hope that the Tribunal will pronounce its award as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly".
 
2.         Now, therefore, in· terms of the said order of the Supreme Court, the Central Government hereby appoint a National Industrial Tribunal consisting of Sri Justice S.Obul Reddi, retired Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh as its Chairman.
 
3.         The following dispute is referred to the Tribunal for its decision:
 
Dispute relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the pleadings of the parties in the Writ Petitions (Civil) No.7149.50. of 1982 and No.132 of 1984 filed in the Supreme Court of India.
 
4.         The Headquarters of the Tribunal shall be at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
 
5.         The Tribunal shall have the power to regulate its own procedures including the fixing of place and times of enquiry. The tribunal may appoint such advisers, institutions and Consultants as it may consider necessary for any particular purpose. The tribunal may call for such information and take evidence as it may consider, necessary.
 
6.         The Ministries/Departments of Government of India, the Regional Rural Banks and Public Sector Banks will furnish such information, documents and other assistance as may be required by the Tribunal. It is expected that the Service Associations/Workers Unions concerned with the Regional Rural Banks and the respective state Governments will extend to the Tribunal their fullest co-operation and assistance.
 
7.         The Tribunal will make its award within a period of six months from the date of assumption of its office. This period may, however, be extended by the Central Government, considered appropriate.
 
8.         The decisions of the Tribunal shall be final and binding ORDERED that the Resolution be published in the Gazette of India. ORDERED also that the copy of the Resolution be communicated to the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government, all State Governments/Union Territories, all public sector banks, Regional Rural Banks, Supreme Court of India, All High Courts and the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions.
 
                                                                        A. K. AGARWAL, Joint Secretary.”
 
10.       Before the National Industrial Tribunal (‘NITâ’ for short), the Central Government, Reserve Bank of India, NABARD, NCBs, State Bank of India, State Bank of Hyderabad, all appeared in addition to the RRBs. Indian Banks Association, the Apex body of the managements of the commercial Banks got impleaded but did not participate in the proceedings. The NIT after recording elaborate evidence and hearing extensive arguments gave its Award on 30.4.1990. 
 
11.       The National Industrial Tribunal in its Award held that the NIT is properly constituted (para 4.13 of the Award). It was further held that :-
“Undisputedly the commercial banks and RRBs carry on similar banking business and participate in the development of rural economy as partners in the rural development acting as instrumentalities of the State in accordance with the directive principles of the Constitution. Establishment of RRBs is to fill in the vacuum in the economic development of the rural sector. It is a national objective in direction of ushering in a welfare State. That the RRBs have brought about a socio economic reformation in the lives of the small farmers, traders, agricultural labourers, artisans, SC/STs and weaker sections is borne out by the evidence on record. That the duties and functions of the officers and other employees of RRBs are similar as those officers and other employees in the comparable posts of rural branches of sponsor banks and that there is no appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector. That the role and performance of RRBs in rural development was better than those of rural branches of commercial banks (Para 4.102). Where the two sets of posts (one in NCBs and other in RRBs) though under different enactments, are of comparable level and involve themselves in the performance of same and similar duties in the implementation of an avowed national policy of amelioration of the poverty conditions of the rural poor, it would be unjust and unreasonable to deny the RRB employees parity in the scales of pay in sponsor banks in comparable posts, having regard to similarity in the nature of duties, functions and responsibilities. That in my opinion, would be a just and equitable equation of posts. This findings is recorded by me, having regard to ex-pression “having regard to” as of sufficient dimension adaptable and supple to extend its application to the salary structure of the Nationalised Bank Employees (Para 1.188). When losses are on in the increases, even in the rural branches of commercial banks, the RRBs cannot be singled out to bear the cross. Ghost of profitability should not haunt us in judging the performance of RRBs. Establishment of RRBs is a national commitment in the direction of ushering in a welfare State. The Act has been enacted to fulfill mandate of the Constitution, to fulfill the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution and performance of RRBs established in furtherance of these principles, shall not be judged from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or from mere profit and loss statements (para 4.239). The NIT thus come to conclude that financial liability of RRBs is an irrelevant criterion in extending parity in service conditions between employees of RRBs and NCBs (Paragraphs 4.189 4.239). There is no justification in equating employees of State Government and local authorities as of comparable level and status with the employees of the RRBs in the notified area (Para 4.240 to 4.260). 
 
The petitioner craves leave to produce and rely on the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition.
 
12.       Some of the important findings and directions issued by the NIT Award in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition are as follows:-
 
“4.102. The duties and functions of the Officers and other employees of the RRBs are similar as those officers and other employees in the comparable posts of rural branches of sponsor banks. There is not any appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector. If the RRBs did not involve themselves in all the business transactions referred to in Section 6 of the B.R.Act, it is because of the restrictions imposed by the Central Government/NABARD having regard to Sub-Section (2) to Section 18 of the RRB Act. The evidence and the statistics amply establish that the role and performance of RRBs in rural development was better than those of rural branches of commercial banks. They have an edge over commercial bank branches in regard to their accessibility to weaker sections and target group. The superiority of the RRBs over the rural branches of sponsor banks has been found by the various impact studies made and the reports of Dantwala Committee and CRAFICARD. There is no difference in regard to the workload between the two kinds of branches. Some Chariman of the RRBs have given all facilities to RRB branches in regard to overdraft, cash credit limit to agriculturists, non-agriculturists, bank guarantees, bills, purchases, issue of demand drafts, advances to transport operators, small scale industries, gold loans etc. In such of those branches where these facilities are available the evidence establishes, so far as the workload is concerned, the workload in RRBs is on par with the workload of Sponsor Banks. All this is said by respondent No.1 (Central Government) in its counter is that “the fact that the RRBs also carry on the same or similar functions as the nationalized commercial banks cannot be a ground for imposing the pay scales of nationalized commercial banks”. This admission that the functions are similar is very significant. It is well to remember that out of 196 RRBs, the Chairman of 112 RRBs in their answers to the questionnaire replied that “the duties and functions of various officers and members of the staff are same and similar as those of the corresponding posts in the nationalized Banks”. 23 Chairmen said “to some extent” and only 6 Chairmen said “they are not comparable”. The persons competent to judge similarity of functions are the Chairman of the banks who are no other than the officers of the sponsor banks. Indisputably commercial banks and RRBs carry on similar banking business and participate in the development of rural economy as partners in the rural development acting as instrumentalities of the State in accordance with the Directive Principles of the Constitution. Establishment of RRBs is to fill in the vacuum in the economic development of the rural sector. It is a national objective in the direction of ushering in a welfare state. That the RRBs have brought about a socio-economic reformation in the lives of the small farmers, traders, agricultural laboures, artisans, SC/STs and weaker sections is borne out by the evidence on record.”
 
4.239. Now we are dealing with a case of special nature concerning the employees of a banking industry claiming parity with the salary structure of employees of a sister banking industry, which alone is comparable in terms of duties, functions and responsibilities. The RRB Act places special emphasis on the development of rural economy by providing credit and other facilities to productive activities in the rural areas, particularly to small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs, and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The reasons and objects of the Act provide a highway for the social welfare and common good of the rural poor living in the priority sector. The preamble of the Constitution envisages to all citizens social, economic and political justice. Article 38 in Part IV enjoins on the State to promote the welfare of the people and to bring about a social order where social, economic and political justice prevail in all the institutions of national life. In particular, the State is asked to strive to minimize the inequalities in income and eliminate inequalities in status. The RRBs have brought about socio economic revolution in the hitherto unbanked under-developed priority sector by ameliorating the poverty conditions of the under-privileged, ST/STs and other weaker sections of the society. That is the paramount objective of the Act. It should not be lost sight of the fact that the total losses suffered by rural branches of commercial banks is undeniably more than the total losses suffered by the RRBs. But, the losses of the rural branches of commercial banks are made up by the other branches in semi urban and urban areas and the RRBs unfortunately for them cannot transfer the losses to their sponsor banks. The object and purpose is the economic development of the target groups and the achievements in that field certainly outweigh considerations of viability or losses. When the losses are on the increase even the rural branches of commercial banks, the RRBs alone cannot be singled out to bear the cross. I can find no better authority than the Chairman of the NABARD who categorically state that the “ghost of profitability” should not haunt us in judging the performance of the RRBs. Establishment of RRBs is a national commitment in the direction of ushering in a welfare State, and that is a mandate of the Constitution. It is in fulfillment of the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution that the RRB Act has been enacted and the performance of such institutions in furtherance of those principles, shall not be judged from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or from mere profit and loss statements.”  
 
“4.425. What flows from my findings is that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with the Officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits. What stems from this finding is the date from which effect should be given to the Award. I have given my anxious consideration as to the date from which the Award should be given effect. The Writ Petition No.7149.50/82 and 132/84 were not filed at one and the same time. They were filed on different dates. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7149-50/82 claimed reliefs from the date of establishment of RRBs. Petitioners in W.P.No. 132/84 did not specify any date but in their claim statement filed before me they have asked for effect being given from the date of Writ Petition i.e., 16.09.1984. I think it would be proper, just and reasonable, if I direct that the Award shall be given effect from 1st day of September, 1987, the date on which the Supreme Court passed the order directing the Central Government to constitute the Tribunal.
 
4.426. Then the next question is what should be the position prior to 1st day of September, 1987. Dealing with the point No.12, I observed in para 4.357:
 
            ………”The salary structure referred to in the second proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act takes in its fold not only the monthly salary but also all allowances and benefits that are attached to that post. That being the case, there is absolutely no reason for the Central Government to allow only certain allowances and benefits and deny the rest. This definitely is discriminatory. After having equated them to the salary structure of the State Government employees, the Government cannot say that they equated the Officers and employees only to the extent of the scale of pay and related allowances and denied the rest of allowances and benefits. It is significant to note that it is not as if Government denied all the facilities demanded by the employees in para-2 of letter No.F.2.32/80-RRB dated 5.02.1980. Subsequently, the Central Government did concede certain allowances and benefits on par with the State Government servants. There are several cases like medical facilities traveling allowances, casual leave, privilege leave, leave encashment facility, leave fare concession, festival advance, vehicle maintenance allowance, accumulation of earned leave, cash allowance etc. which are allowed, but they are not on par with the benefits enjoyed by the employees of State Government. In my view, the salary structure when applied to the Officers/employees of RRBs, should be extended wholly so as to cover all such benefits and allowances as are admissible to the State Government employees in comparable posts and status. This will atleast bring about uniformity in each of the states concerned”.
 
4.427. Having regard to the above, in order to eliminate the anomalies and bring about uniformity in the pay scales in all the RRBs at least to the extent of each State, I find that they will be entitled to all the allowances, benefits which the State Government servants of comparable level and status are entitled to. They will, therefore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc., till 31st day of August, 1987.
 
4.428 So far as the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for Officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the Officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scales of pay as are applicable to officers of sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. This will also include the pay scales, benefits, other allowances and fitment of sub-staff of the RRBs with the sub-staff of sponsor banks. This Award is accordingly passed and it shall cover at the existing RRBs. The Award shall be given effect to from 1st day of September, 1987.”
 
13.       The Government of India appointed an Equation Committee in terms of the direction contained at para 4.428 of the Award. Two issues that were referred to the Committee were (1) Equation of existing posts in RRBs with corresponding posts of comparable level in sponsor banks and (2) Fitment into the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits and corresponding posts. The Equation Committee submitted its report on 16.01.1991. 
 
14.       Accepting the NIT Award and the Equation Committee Report, the Central Government issued directions to all the RRBs to implement the NIT Award and the Equation Committee Report with effect from 1.09.1987. Regarding payment of arrears for the period 1.09.1987 to 31.12.1990 the Government called upon the RRBs to calculate the arrears and communicate to the Government of India and NABARD as early as possible. It is pertinent to mention that pursuant to this communication, pay scales, allowances and other benefits on par with National Commercial Banks (NCBs for short) were extended to the employees of RRBs with effect from 1.09.1987. A copy of the Communication No.11/3/90/RRB(1) issued by the Equation Committee dated 22.02.1991 is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-P1. 
 
15.       As on 1.09.1987 the pay scales and allowances of the workmen of NCBs were governed by IVth Bipartite Settlement. There was revision of pay scales and allowances of NCB workmen pursuant to Vth Bipartite Settlement which came into effect from 1.11.1987. Similarly in respect of officer employees of NCBs also wage revision was given effect to from 1.11.1987. The 1st respondent implemented the pay and allowances as per IVth bipartite settlement with effect from 01/09/1987 and as per Vth bipartite settlement with effect from 01/11/1987 to RRB employees and the revised terms applicable to NCB officers to the officers of RRBs from 1.09.87 and 1.11.1987 respectively.
 
16      Pursuant to a settlement dated 29.10.1993 pension was introduced as a retirement benefits in lieu of contributory provident fund for employees of sponsor banks. This was made effective for all those who have retired from the services of the sponsor banks on or after 1.01.1986 with the actual payment of pension being made from 1.11.1993. An identical joint note was signed between the officers Trade Unions and the managements of the sponsor Banks also. Both these have been given effect to by the Pension Regulations notified by the sponsor Banks. Under these settlements, joint note and the Regulations, the employees of the sponsor Banks have been given pension as a retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund. The Central Government has not so far issued directions under Section 17(1) of the Act extending pension to the employees of the RRBs.
 
17.       For officers working in the sponsor Banks stagnation increment has been introduced providing for officers in Scales I and II. This stagnation increment has been extended to higher scale upto Scale-III. While implementing this, in respect of Regional Rural Banks, the stagnation increment has been made effective prospectively. The scheme in the sponsor Banks in so far as stagnation increment is concerned is as under:
 
“5(1)         Subject to the provisions of Regulation 4(2), on and from 1.11.1992, the increments shall be granted subject to the following sub-clauses:
 
           (a)       The increments specified in the scales of pay set out in Regulation 4 shall, subject to the sanction of Competent Authority, accrue on an annual basis and shall be granted on the first day of the month in which these fall due.
 
           (b)       Officers in Scale-I and Scale-II, 1 year after reaching the maximum in their respective scales, shall be granted further increments including stagnation increment(s) in the next higher scale only as specified in (c) below subject to their crossing the efficiency bar as per guidelines of the Government.
           
           (c)       Officers including those referred to in (b) above who reach the maximum of Middle Management Grade Scale-II and III shall draw stagnation increment(s) for every three completed years of service after reaching the last stage of the Scale II or Scale III as the case may be subject to a maximum of two such increments of Rs.230/- each for officers in the last stage of Scale-II and one such increment of Rs.250/- for Officers in the last stage of Scale-III.
           
                        Provided that on and from 1.11.1994 Officers in substantive Scale-III i.e., those who are recruited in or promoted to Scale-III shall be eligible for second stagnation increments three years after having received the first stagnation increment.
 
                        NOTE:
                        Grant of such increments in the next higher scale shall not amount to promotion. Officers even after receipt of such increments shall continue to get privileges, perquisites, duties, responsibilities or post of their substantive Scale-I or Scale-II as the case may be.”.
 
This also has not yet been extended fully to the officers of RRBs.
 
18.       On 29.10.1993 the Indian Banksâ’ Association representing the managements of 58 commercial banks which included all the NCBs which have sponsored the RRBsâ’ entered into a settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding computerization and mechanization of the Banks. As per the   settlement the workmen of sponsor Banks became eligible for computerization increment.   By this settlement the unions agreed for introduction of branch level computerization, computerization of administrative units, net working, e-banking etc. The managements agreed for grant of one advance increment with effect from 1.11.1993 and for payment of special pay for workmen who are required to perform duties of data entry operators, computer operators Advanced Ledger Posting Machine operators etc. This computer increment and allowance has also not been extended to the employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks, though all operations in the RRBs are computerized. A copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P2.
 
19.       Subsequently, by the 6th Bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995 signed between the Indian Banksâ’ Association and the workmen trade unions the special pay payable to workmen employees performing various special allowance duties were enhanced. 
 
20.       As per joint note dated 14.12.1999 signed between the Indian Banksâ’ Association and the Officers trade unions, the Officers working in the NCBs were also granted one advance increment with effect from 1.11.1993. A copy of the said joint note signed between the Indian Banksâ’ Association and the Officers trade unions dated 14.12.1999 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P3. With these settlements and joint notes, the work force in the sponsor Banks got one increment called computer increment from 1.11.1993 and individual workman who are required to perform various special allowance duties concerned with the computers also got various special pays to be paid to the workmen for the days they performed duties on computers. Having regard to the NIT award, judgment of this Honâ’ble Court (supra) , the workmen and officers in the RRBs also became entitled to payment of computer increment from 1.11.1993 and the special pay for various computer related jobs to be performed by the workmen. 
 
21.       The terms and conditions of service were revised for workmen in the sponsor banks with effect from 1.11.1992 by the 6th Bipartite Settlement. Similarly, for officers working in the sponsor Banks there was wage revision with effect from 1.11.1992 and 1.07.1993. By virtue of the NIT Award, the employees working in various RRBs became entitled to be paid salary revision that was given to the workmen and officers of sponsor Banks with effect form 1.11.1992 and 1.07.1993 respectively. Instead of granting these wage revisions, the respondent/Central Government took a stand that the employees of the RRBs are not entitled to receive wage revisions as and when given to similarly situated employees of the sponsor Banks. At the behest of the Central Government, the Reserve Bank of India on 5.11.1996 appointed a committee on salary and allowances of employees of Regional Rural Banks headed by one Sri S.C.Mahalik. 
 
22.       Being aggrieved by non-extension of wage revision to the employees of RRBs with effect from 1.11.1992 pursuant to the 6th Bipartite Settlement and with effect from 1.07.1993 in so far as officers are concerned, All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association approached the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.17905 of 1997 challenging the appointment of Mahalik Committee.
 
23.       In the year 1997, the petitioners herein filed a Writ Petition O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 before the High Court of Kerala praying to the extend the benefit of the VIth bipartite settlement and officers wage revision and all other benefits that was implemented in the Sponsor Bank to the employees and officers of the South Malabar Gramin Bank. The petitioners had also prayed for a direction to extend the benefit of all future pay revisions as and when it is implemented in the Sponsor Bank. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners herein as per judgment dated 22/07/1998.
 
25.       The High Court of Karnataka by Judgment dated 11.11.1998 allowed the Writ Petition No.17905 of 1997, quashing the appointment of Mahalik Committee. A direction was issued to the Central Government to extend, pay, allowances and all other benefits with effect from 1.11.1992 to all the employees of RRBs in accordance with pay, allowances and benefits implemented in respect of employees of Nationalized commercial Banks as per the memorandum of settlement dated 14.02.1995 (6th Bipartite Settlement) and as per wage revision given to officers of the Nationalised commercial Banks from 1.11.1992 and 1.07.1993 as per joint note signed between the trade unions of officers of Nationalised commercial Banks and managements. 
 
26.       The Writ Appeal 1547 of 1998 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 25-11-1998 holding interalia that whenever there is a revision of pay in Commercial banks / Sponsor banks, the employees and officers of Regional Rural Banks should also be given the same benefits.
 
27.       The South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Central Government challenged the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A No.1547 of 1996 before this Honâ’ble Court in S.L.P (C) No. 20142/1998 which was later converted into C.A.No. 2218 of 1999.
 
28.       During the pendency of the Civil Appeal, the Central Government had filed an Interlocutory Application for directions seeking permission to revise the scales of RRB employees. In paragraph 11 of the said I.A., the Central Government stated that they are willing to extend the benefits of the 6th and 7th bipartite settlements in part and that too for those RRBs which are earning profit. It was also stated in the said I.A., that as far as other allowances are concerned individual sponsor banks shall negotiate the same with the respective RRBs and that the revised allowances shall be paid with effect from 01/04/2000. The said package of the Central Government was strongly opposed by the petitioners and therefore this Honâ’ble Court rejected the I.A. and ultimately heard the matter on merits and delivered the judgment with the directions mentioned above.
 
29.       This Honâ’ble Court disposed of the appeals C.A. No. 2218/1999 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank and C.A. No. 2219/1999 filed by the Central Government as per Judgment dated 31.1.2001. While disposing of the Appeals this Honâ’ble Court formulated three questions. The first question was whether the award passed by Justice Obul Reddy and accepted by Central Government and given effect to, can be construed to mean that the pay scales and other emoluments of the Regional Rural Banks employees would stand automatically altered as and when the pay structure of the employees of the commercial banks get revised on the basis of the so called bi-partite settlement between the employer and the employees of those commercial banks. This Hon'ble Court held that the revision of the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks could be made only after the Central Government exercises its power under the provisions of the Act and determines the same. It was further held by this Hon'ble Court that, if however the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks, then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking in to account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks.
 
30.       The next question considered by this Hon'ble Court was whether the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks could be a vital consideration for the Central Government in determining the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. The appellants Union of India and the South Malabar Gramin Bank had contended before this Honâ’ble Court relying on the decisions of this Honâ’ble Court in ”Express Newspapers (P) Limited and another Vs Union of India and others” 1959 SCR page 12, ”Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Vs Its workman and another” 1961 (3) SCR page 536 and ”The Hindustan Times Limited, New Delhi Vs their workman” 1964 (1) SCR page234 that the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks is such that it would not be possible for the Union of India to give them pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. Distinguishing the above decisions from the facts of this case, this Honâ’ble Court held that:
 
“But the aforesaid observations cannot be pressed into service in the case in hand, where the award of Justice Obul Reddy tribunal unhesitatingly negatived the aforesaid stand of the employer and came to the positive conclusion after elaborate discussions of the purpose for which these banks were established and how a case of very special nature concerning the employees of a banking industry claiming parity with the salary structure of the employees of a sister banking industry is being considered and ultimately, the tribunal had observed that the Act has been enacted in fulfillment of the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the directive principles of the Constitution and, therefore, the performance of such institutions in furtherance of those principles is not required to judge from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or mere profit and loss statement. At any rate the aforesaid decision of the tribunal in the form of an award was implemented by the Central Government and therefore having implemented the same, it would not be permissible for the employer bank or the Union of India to take such a plea in the present proceedings.
 
This Hon'ble Court further held that:
 
"This conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the award in question    not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented in the aforesaid premises it is a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which was already been resolved and has been given effect to. In our considered opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor”.
 
31.       The next question considered by the Honâ’ble Court was, what is the meaning of the ex-pression “parity” used by the tribunal in its award and indicating "that the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits" in paragraph 4.425 of the award of the tribunal. This Hon'ble Court held that:
 
"In view of the definition of the aforesaid ex-pression "parity" and in the context of in which the tribunal came to hold that the employees of the Regional Rural Banks would be entitled to claim 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."
 
This Hon'ble Court further held that::
 
"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 parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987"
  
32.       The Apex Body of the petitionersâ’ organization had made several representations to the 1st respondent seeking extension of pension, grant of computerization increment, enhancement and extension of all other allowances and benefits. In the mean time on 27.03.2000, 7th Bipartite Settlement and officers wage revision was entered into giving wage revision for workmen staff and officers employed in the NCBs with effect from 1.11.1997.   
 
33.       Pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular on 11-4-2001 determining the pay scale of employees of the Regional Rural Banks. Instead of determining the pay revision as per the directions contained in the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, the respondents had issued the circular incorporating the very same suggestions contained in paragraph 11 of the earlier I.A. which had been rejected by this Hon'ble Court.
 
34.       As per the above said Circular, the new basic pay and dearness allowance of each RRB employee as on 1-4-2000 would be determined by notionally granting the benefit of 6th and 7th bipartite settlement and officers wage revision w.e.f. 1-11-1992 and 1-4-1998 respectively. In para (ii) of the circular it was stated that the current payment of increase in the salary due to grant of new pay scales shall be made in such a manner that the cash outflow in a particular year on this account is not more than 50% of the operating profit of the concerned RRB as per previous year's published balance sheet .The RRB's who have incurred operating losses in the previous year would not be able to make current payment of increased portion of the revised salary and the amount due on account of increase in salary shall be transferred to the arrears account. If anticipated cash out flow on account of the increase in salary is exceeding 50% of the operating profit in the last year, the current payment may be restricted only to 50% of the operating profit and the rest shall be transferred to arrears account.
 
35.       As per para (iii) of the said circular continuation of payment of salary in revised scales is subject to making of profit by the concerned RRBs. As per para (iv) of the circular the HRA and CCA would be payable at the same rate as applicable to comparable employees in the sponsor bank and would be given only prospectively, that is from the date of order. As per para (v) of the circular the other allowances payable to the employees shall be negotiated between the sponsor banks and respective RRBs and to be given effect from 1.4.2000. A copy of the Circular F.No. 7 (5) / 95 RRB issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) dated 11-04-2001 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE –P4.
 
36.       Subsequently the Central Government issued another circular dated 25/04/2001 modifying Annexure P5 circular. As per the said circular revised basic pay, D.A., and CCA would be payable to the RRB employees with effect from 01/11/1992 and 01/11/1997 as per the 6th and 7th bipartite settlements. It was further stated that all other allowances will be revised by respective sponsor banks after negotiations with RRB employees and would be payable with effect from 01/04/2000. A copy of the Circular F.No. 7 (5) / 95 RRB issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) dated 25-04-2001 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P5.
 
37.       By Order dated 18.01.2002 issued by the Central Government the rate of interest on house building advances granted to officers in NCBs was reduced. As a measure of parity, the workmen and officers of RRBsâ’ are entitled to the same quantum of festival advance which is granted interest free in the sponsor banks as also house loans and conveyance loans on the same terms and conditions and upto the same extent as available to the employees of the sponsor banks. A copy of the Circular issued by the Central Government dated 18.01.2002 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P6.
 
38.       Since Annexure P4 and P5 circulars were issued in total disregard to the directions of this Honâ’ble Court in the Judgment in Civil Appeal, the petitioners herein filed a Contempt Petition No.162 of 2001 before this Honâ’ble Court. After hearing both sides this Honâ’ble Court found that the issuance of notification dated 11/04/2001 is not in compliance with the judgment and directions in Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999. Accordingly this Honâ’ble Court disposed of the Contempt petition on 7.3.2002 issuing the following directions:
 
i)             The employees of the Regional Rural Banks should be paid their current salaries on the basis of the determination made under the notification dated 11.4.2001, the new basic pay having arrived at, as on 1.4.2000 forthwith.
 
ii)          Paragraph (I) of the Notification dated 11.4.2001 should be immediately implemented and the employees should be paid accordingly.
 
iii)        Paragraph (ii) and (iii) of the notification are quashed and the Central Government is directed to issue a fresh notification for proper implementation of the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
 
iv)         The arrear salary be paid in three equal installments, the first being on 30th April, 2002, the second on 30th of April, 2003 and the third on 30th of April, 2004.
 
39.       This Honâ’ble Court directed the Union of India that the payment has to be made without being any way dependant upon any other considerations and there cannot be any distinction between the Regional Rural Banks incurring loss and the Regional Rural Banks making profit. It was also held that the question of anticipated cash out-flow on account of increase in salary if exceeds 50% of the operating profit, then the current payment would be restricted only up to 50% is absolutely of no relevance, which was indicated in the notification dated 11.4.2001. A copy of the Judgment in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.162 of 2001 in C.A.No. 2218 of 1999 dated 7.3.2002 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P7.
 
40.       Pursuant to the Judgment in the Contempt Petition, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance issued a Circular dated 17.4.2002. In the Circular the pay scale of the regional rural banks was revised as under:
 
i)                   The new basic pay and dearness allowances of each RRB employee as on 1.4.2000 would be determined by notionally granting the benefits of 6th and 7th bipartite settlement and officers wage revision w.e.f 1.11.1992 and 1.11.1997 respectively. The formula for fitment of salary in various scales may also remain the same as was adopted for commercial bank employees. Thus, as on 1.4.2000, the pay scales of the RRB employees would be equal to that of their counter parts in commercial banks. The current payment should be made immediately irrespective of loss/profit and a compliance report may be sent to the Government by 30.4.2002. ” Basic Pay and dearness allowance” means basic pay, dearness pay, dearness allowance, adhoc or additional D.A., interim relief or any other allowance which form part of pay or D.A.
 
ii)                The arrears of salary accruing to the employees up to 31.3.2000 shall be paid to them in three equal installments, the first being on 30th April, 2002, the second on 30th of April, 2003 and the third on 30th of April, 2004.
 
iii)              Having regard to the financial condition of the RRBs as observed by the Honâ’ble Supreme Court, the installment to be paid on 30.4.2002 should be deposited in the employeesâ’ provident fund account on or before 30.4.2002. The remaining two installments should be paid in cash on 30.4.2003 and 30.4.2004 respectively.
 
iv)               The House Rent Allowance (HRA) would be payable at the same rate as applicable to comparable employees in the sponsor banks and would be given prospective effect i.e. from 11.4.2001. Revised basic pay, D.A and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) will become due from 1.11.1992 and 1.11.1997 as per sixth and seventh bipartite settlements respectively.
 
v)                  All other allowances should be immediately revised if not already revised pursuant to Order dated 11.4.2001 by respective sponsor banks after negotiation with RRB employees.
 
A copy of the Circular issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance dated 17.4.2002 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P8.
 
41.       In clause 1 of Annexure P8 circular it is stated that the new basic pay and dearness allowance of each RRB employee as on 01/04/2000 would be determined by notionally granting the benefit of 6th and 7th bipartite settlements and officers wage revision with effect from 1/11/92 and 1/11/97 respectively. While implementing the above directions, Govt. of India has not explicitly directed the RRBs to extend benefits like Computer Increment, Computer Pay, Functional Pay, Special Pay, Transport allowance and many other allowances and other benefits including automatic switch over from same date of effect as introduced / revised in the Banking Industry after the issuance of Government Order dated 22.02.91. Government Orders dated 11.04.2001, 25.04.2001 and 17.04.2002 are totally silent about “Other Allowances, Benefits and Other Service Conditions” though these are obligatory components of Salary Structure as defined in the NIT Award.
 
42.       As per clause 4 of the said circular House Rent Allowance (HRA) would be payable at the same rate as applicable to comparable employees in the Sponsor Bank and would be given prospective effect from the date of order, i.e. from 11/04/2001 only. In clause 5 of the said circular it is stated that all other allowances should be immediately revised, if not already revised pursuant to order dated 11/04/2001 by respective Sponsor Banks after negotiations with RRB employees. Clause 4 of Annexure P8 is again in violation of the judgment and directions of this Honâ’ble Court. In sponsor banks, HRA was revised with retrospective effect from 1/11/92 in accordance with the 6th bipartite settlement and with effect from 1/11/99 in accordance with the 7th bipartite settlement. The said benefit has been illegally denied to the employees of RRBs thereby causing huge disparity in salary of employees of Sponsor banks and employees of RRBs for the period from 1/11/92 to 11/04/2001 which is against the directions of this Honâ’ble Court to maintain parity. HRA is the main component in which there will be considerable increase while implementing wage revisions. By denying the revision in HRA from 1/11/1992 to 11/4/2001 a major part of the revision is being denied to the RRB employees.
 
43.       In clause 5 of Annexure P8 circular it is stated that all other allowances should be immediately revised, if not already revised pursuant to order dated 11/04/2001 by respective Sponsor banks after negotiations with RRB employees. This is quite contrary to the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court. In fact this Honâ’ble Court had specifically directed the Union Government to take a decision regarding the payment of all other allowances. Accordingly the respondents ought to have taken a decision and issued directions instead of leaving the matter to the Sponsor banks. Any negotiation with any authority other than the Government of India will be a futile exercise as the Government of India alone has the power to determine the salary structure of the RRB employees in terms of Section 17 of the RRB Act and as held by this Honâ’ble Court. The Government of India is also bound to extend all the benefits of all the components of “Salary structure” that is, pay, allowances, other benefits and service conditions as available at any point of time in the past or future to the RRB Staff as available to the employees in comparable posts in the Sponsor banks.
 
44.       The petitioners filed I.A.No.10 in C.A.No. 2218/1999 on 25.7.2002 seeking various directions to the respondents to grand the benefits in terms of the Bi-partite settlements. This application was later withdrawn.
 
45.       Some of the RRBs in the country having regard to the NIT award and the subsequent judicial pronouncements and communications issued by the Central Government, implemented payment of computer increment and special pay for the workmen discharging special allowance duties in computer related functions.
 
46.       By Communication dated 20th March, 1993 it has also been admitted by the respondents that housing loan, conveyance loan and consumer loan also come within the meaning of the term ‘other benefitsâ’. Under the directions of the 1st respondent, during the year 2001 quantum of house building loans for workmen employed in the sponsor banks was enhanced. 
 
47.       During the year 2002 the quantum of conveyance loans to officers and workmen of NCBs was enhanced pursuant to an order dated 8.11.2002. A copy of the Circular issued by the Central Government dated 8.11.2002 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P9.
 
48.       On 4.7.2002 a meeting of the sponsor banks took a decision which resulted in the deprival of parity in the matter of service conditions to the employees of the RRBs granted by the NIT award which was in full force and binding and affirmed by this Honâ’ble Court. Accordingly the NABARD issued a Communication dated 30.1.2003, wherein it is advised that the employees of RRBs are not eligible to computer increment and computer allowance and has imposed severe curtail on loan facilities which are part of service conditions. This communication instead of granting parity as directed by the Honâ’ble Supreme Court has created disparities and withdrawn the parity that was already granted. The copy of the Communication issued by NABARD dated 30.1.2003 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P10. 
 
49.       On 02.06.2005 the VIIIth bipartite settlement was implemented in the Sponsor Bank with effect from 01/11/2002. Consequently as per separate orders, the pay of Officers in the Sponsor Bank was also revised with effect from 01.11.2002. Thereafter the Government of India issued order dated 06.10.2005 extending the benefit of the pay revision to the employees and officers of the RRBs. A true copy of the order No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 06.10.2005 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE–P11. Clause 3 of order states that as far as other allowances are concerned, the individual Sponsor Banks shall negotiate with the RRBs sponsored by them. In fact the said direction is contrary to the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in the Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999.
 
50.       The Government thereafter issued order No. 7(6)2005 RRB dated 25/10/2005 wherein it was stated that “basic pay and allowances” as mentioned in order dated 06/10/2005 means “basic pay, dearness pay, dearness allowances, adhoc or additional D.A, interim relief or any other allowance which form part of pay or D.A. It was also clarified that pay includes special pay also if any. A true copy of the order No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 25.10.2005 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P12.
 
51.       The NABARD called a meeting of the Sponsor Banks on 27.01.2006 and the Sponsor Bank rejected parity in respect of several allowances such as Traveling / Diem allowance, Mid academic year transfers, closing allowance, leave fare concession, transport allowance, computer allowance, cyclostyle operator allowance, house rent reimbursement, compensation on transfer, split duty allowance, petrol reimbursement etc. Even in the matter of loans the Sponsor Bank failed to implement parity. This is in addition to unimplemented items of the past. Again when it came to the effect of revision, instead of 01.11.2002 given to the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank, it recommended 01.04.2006. In the matter of other allowances and other benefits, the Government of India as per letter dated 24.02.2006 left the matter to the discretion of the Sponsor Bank instead of taking a decision as per the directions in the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in C.A No. 2218 of 1999.
 
52.       Thereafter the Government of India issued letter No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 05.10.2006 addressed to the General Manager, NABARD clarifying that if computer allowance is termed as special pay, it becomes part of pay and no specific approval of the Government is required. It was also stated that in case of halting allowance / traveling / dime allowance the same appears to be part of other allowances and therefore need be decided by the Sponsor Banks in terms of the letter dated 06.10.2005. A true copy of the letter No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 05.10.2006 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE–P13. The contents of the said letter was communicated by the NABARD to all the Sponsor Banks. A true copy of the letter No.NBIDD RRCBD/ 360/316 (BS) 2006/2007 20.11.2006 of the NABARD is produced herewith annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P14.
 
53.       In accordance with the directions of the Government of India and NABARD, the 2nd respondent bank issued Circular No. 22/2007 dated 01.03.2007 revising some of the “other allowances / benefits” of the employees and officers of the bank at a reduced rate causing huge disparity. Moreover instead of revising the benefits with retrospective effect, it was granted only with effect from 23/02/2007. A true copy of the Circular No. 22/2007 dated 01.03.2007 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P15. Subsequently the 2rd respondent bank issued another Circular No. 46/2007 dated 18.5.2007 implementing computer allowances with effect from 25.4.2007 instead of 01/11/2002 as per the direction of the Government of India dated 06/10/2005 and 05/10/2006. A true copy of the Circular 46/2007 dated 18.5.2007 issued by the respondent bank is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P16.
 
54.       As submitted above, the benefits that were extended to the employees and officers of the Sponsor Banks were not fully extended to the employees of the 3rd respondent bank. In some of the Regional Rural Banks many of the benefits have been extended with effect from the date on which those benefits were extended in the Sponsor Banks. In some Regional Rural Banks only a very few benefits have been extended. The way in which the revision has been implemented in different Regional Rural Banks, have caused disparity even among the employees of the different Regional Rural Banks which is against the letter and spirit of the Award of NIT and the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in Civil Appeal No,. 2218 of 1999.
 
55.       It is submitted that the following are the other Allowances and Benefits / Service Conditions as allowed in Bipartite settlement in the Banking Industry to the comparable post / Cadre of Sponsor Bank as equated by GOI in its order dated 22.2.1991, 20.03.1993 and 31.07.2001 which are not extended to the employees of the RRBs:-
 
1.                        Pension Benefit As per scheme in the Banking Industry from 1.11.92 (Bipartite settlement dated 29.10.93)
2.                        Provident Fund as applicable in Sponsor Banks /“Banking Industry”.
3.                        Advance increment for “Computerisation” as extended to all staff in the banking industry as per Bipartite settlement on 29th October,1993.
4.                        Computer Allowance(Special Pay) with retrospective effect. ( In fact Computer Allowance has not yet been implemented in certain RRBs).
5.                        Mid Academic Transfer Allowance-(partly denied).
6.                        Reimbursement of Hospitalisation expenses- (not fully allowed) 
7.                        Transport / Conveyance Allowance
8.                        Reimbursement of Medical expenses (not revised)
9.                        Leased House accommodation facility.
10.                   Reimbursement of Fuel expenses. 
11.                   Incidental expenditure on transfer (not fully allowed).
12.                   Leave Fare Concession (not revised).
13.                   Halting Allowance (partly revised).
14.          Staff loans and advances.
 
57.       It is submitted that the respondents have not so far extended all the benefits that are being granted to the employees and officers of the Sponsor Banks to the employees and officers of the 3rd respondent bank in accordance with the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in Civil Appeal No,. 2218 of 1999 and the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal thus causing huge disparity. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
  
58.       It is submitted that the petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Honâ’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and for the implementation of the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in C.A. No. 2218 of 1999. This Honâ’ble Court in the judgment in observed as follows:-
 
“If the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking into account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the nationalized commercial banks”.
 
It is submitted that the Central Government now failed to discharge its obligation under Section 17 of the Act by denying the other benefits and allowances to the RRB employees. It is further submitted that the subject matter of this writ petition affect all the employees of Regional Rural Banks in the country. It is submitted that an authoritative pronouncement is needed by this Honâ’ble Court on the questions raised in the present writ petition to avoid multiplicity of litigations in different High Courts.
 
 
      The petitioner files the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of its fundamental rights on the following among other: -
G R O U N D S
 
A.        Because in the light of the NIT Award and the subsequent decisions of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101, and the Judgment in Contempt Petition No 162 /2001 in CA.No 2218/1999 the action of the respondents in denying computerization increment pursuant to settlement dated 29.10.1993 and corresponding joint note with the officersâ’ trade unions of the sponsor banks and denying House Rent Allowance from 1.11.1992 and 1.11.1999 and denying various other allowances as per the 6th ,7th and 8th Bipartite Settlements and correspondent joint notes in respect of officers contrary to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal and the law declared by this Honâ’ble Court is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjust, irrational and thus violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and employees of the RRBs under Articles 14, 16(1), 39(d) and 43 of the Constitution of India.
 
B.        Because the meaning of the term “parity” was discussed at length by this Honâ’ble Court in the judgment and had come to the finding that the term “parity” means “equality or on par with”. This Honâ’ble Court has also cautioned the Central Government that they will not be justified in deciding the pay structure for the employees of the RRBs which would bring disparity between the two groups of employees. Accordingly while disposing of the Civil Appeals, this Honâ’ble Court while upholding the contention of the appellants with regard to the power of the Central Government to decide the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, held in clear terms that 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 Reddy decided and as was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987.
 
C.        Because in the Government Order appointing the National Industrial Tribunal as per the Judgment passed by this Honâ’ble Court dated 1.9.1987, the dispute referred to the Tribunal was :- “  Dispute relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the pleadings of the parties in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 7149-50/82and 132/84 filed in the Supreme Court of India. The decisions of the Tribunal shall be final and binding”. In Paragraph 4.425 of the Award Justice Obul Reddy has held that:
 
“What flows from my findings is that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with Officers and other employees of the Sponsor Banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits. “
 
             The NIT in Paragraph 4.357 observed that:-
    “To the extent it concerns this point, I hold that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to all other allowances and benefits which are till now denied to them, but enjoyed by those employees of comparable level and status in State Govt. service………”.
 
It was further observed by the Tribunal in Paragraph 4. 426 that:-
“The salary structure referred to in the second proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act takes in its fold not only the monthly salary but also all allowances and benefits that are attached to that post”
In para 4.427 it was observed that
“ Having regard to the above, in order to eliminate the anomalies and bring about uniformity in the pay scales in all the RRBs at least to the extent of each State, I find that they will be entitled to all the allowances, benefits which the State Government servants of comparable level and status are entitled to. They will, therefore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc., till 31st day of August, 1987.”
 
 
In Paragraph 4. 428 it was further observed that:-
            “ So far as the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scales of pay as are applicable to officers of sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level.”
 
These benefits and allowances they shall enjoy up to the 31st day of August, 1987 and from 1st day of September 1987, they would be governed by the relief granted under point No. 14 of the Award. 
That being the case there is absolutely no reason for the Central Govt. to allow only certain allowances and benefits and deny the rest of the benefits. After having equated them to the salary structure of the Commercial bank employees, the Govt. cannot give benefits only to the extent of the scale of pay, DA and HRA and deny the rest of allowances and benefits. It is submitted that on a reading of the NIT Award with the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court, it is unambiguously clear that the employees and officers of the RRBs are entitled to parity not only in the matter of pay scales but also with regard to all allowances and other benefits that are being paid to their counter parts in the Nationalised Commercial Banks.
 
D.        Because the Central Government had also issued an Order dated 22/2/1991 accepting the Award wherein it was stated that the allowances /special allowances and other benefits which are provided in bipartite settlements and the service regulation of the concerned sponsor banks would be extended to the employees/officers of RRBs respectively. In accordance with the Award and the order dated 22/2/1991, while extending the benefits of the 4th and 5th bipartite settlements, all allowances and other benefits listed in the order which were given to the employees of the Sponsor Banks were extended to the RRB employees from the date on which the same was given to the employees of the Sponsor Banks. Now even though this Honâ’ble Court had categorically directed the Central Government that while deciding under Section 17 of the RRB Act, the Central Government is duty bound to maintain the parity with pay structure of the employees of the nationalized commercial banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987, the respondents ignoring the above specific directions of this Honâ’ble Court, has issued orders denying various components of “Salary Structure” as defined by NIT, including Other Benefits and Other Service Conditions to the employees of the RRBs and also denied the same date of effect as introduced or revised for their counterparts in Sponsor Banks as per Bipartite Settlements / Govt.â’s. Orders. This action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.
 
E.         It is submitted that the question that was referred to the National Industrial Tribunal for its decision was whether the employees and officers of RRBs should be given the same pay, allowances and other benefits that are given to employees and officers of Sponsor banks. The decision of the NIT was that there was functional parity and that the employees and officers of RRBs are entitled to be given the pay, allowances and other service benefits that are given to employees and officers holding comparable posts in Sponsor banks. This Honâ’ble Court also held that the employees of the RRBs are entitled to parity in the matter of pay structure and other benefits with the employees of the Sponsor banks. In view of the above all allowances and other benefits as are given to the employees of the Sponsor banks are to be extended to the employees of the RRBs from the date from which the said benefits are given to the employees of the Sponsor bank so as to maintain parity at all points of time. Due to the non implementation of the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in letter and spirit, the disparity in pay, allowances and other benefits between the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank and RRBs have widened considerably causing gross disparity at this point of time. Denial of any single “allowance or benefit” that is being enjoyed by the employees of the Sponsor bank to the employees of the RRBs would amount to disparity and violative of the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court and the Award of the NIT.
 
F.         Because the Central Government ought to have revised the pay structure of the RRB employees immediately after the revision of pay in the Sponsor banks so as to maintain parity. The denial of the many of the benefits and the long delay in extending the benefits of the bipartite settlements, regular and supplementary in the banking industry after 1.11.1992 was illegal and unreasonable and against all canons of justice and has been declared so by this Honâ’ble Court. The employees were put to considerable loss and hardship due to the undue delay for a period nearly one decade in revising their pay structure. The employees of RRBs are also aggrieved by the non extension of the benefits from the date on which the benefits were extended to their counterparts in NCBs. The above stand of the Central Government is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
 
G.        Because the second proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to determine service conditions of the employees of the RRBs. The said proviso reads: “Provided that the remuneration of officers and other employees appointed by a Regional Rural Bank shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government…”. This Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bankâ’s case (supra) while upholding the contentions of the managements with regard to the power of the Central Government to decide the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks has declared that while exercising that power there cannot be any doubt that the Central Government would be duty bound to maintain parity with the pay structure of the employees of the nationalized commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and as was given effect to by the Union Government with effect from the year 1987. The communication dated 30.01.2003 is a direction issued by the NABARD which has no powers to issue any such direction under the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 as well as under the provisions of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981. The directions of the NABARD denying computer allowance and computer increment is without authority of law, contrary to the directions of this Honâ’ble Court and thus unsustainable in law.
 
H.        It is submitted that even otherwise the assertion made by the NABARD about the extent of computerization in RRBs is irrelevant, contrary to the NIT award which has rejected identical contention regarding the nature of business handled by sponsor banks and RRBs and the nature of work discharged in the two establishments and even factually it is incorrect.
 
I.          Even otherwise, the Government of India having directed in its directions issued under Section 17(1) dated 25th April, 2001 that “all other allowances will be revised by respective sponsor banks after negotiations with RRB employees and would be payable w.e.f. 1.04.2000” and having further directed again under Section 17(1) of the Act by its order dated 17th April, 2002 that “All other allowances should be immediately revised if not already revised pursuant to order dated 11.4.2001 by respective sponsor banks after negotiations with RRB employees”, so called decision of meeting of the sponsor banks relied upon in the communication dated 30.01.2003 issued by the NABARD and the orders issued by the Government dated 06/10/2005 and 25/10/2005 with respect to the implementation of the 8th bipartite settlement is contrary to the statutory directions issued by the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Act, and incompetent, ultra vires the provisions of the Act and cannot be sustained in law. The petitioners are entitled to conveyance allowance termed as transport allowance, computer increment and computer allowances and other benefits as per various bipartite settlements and joint notes at the rates given to the employees of the sponsor Banks from the dates on which the same was extended/revised.
 
J.         The direction of the Central Government at paragraphs (iv) and (v) of its order dated 17th April, 2002 reads as follows:-
 
(iv)      The House Rent Allowance (HRA) would be payable at the same rate as applicable to comparable employees in the sponsor banks and would be given prospective effect i.e., from 11.04.2001. Revised basic pay, D.A. and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) will become due from 1.11.1992 and 1.11.1997 as per sixth and seventh bipartite settlement respectively.
 
(v)       All other allowances should be immediately revised, if not already revised pursuant to order dated 11.04.2001 by respective sponsor banks after negotiations with RRB employees.
 
            The said order in so far as it denies House Rent Allowance from 1.11.1992 and 1.11.1997 and in so far as it denies all other allowances upto 11.04.2001 is illegal, contrary and unsustainable.
 
K.        After the implementation of the VIIIth bipartite settlement in the Sponsor Banks , the Central Government as per order No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 06/10/2005 extended the benefits to the RRBs. Clause 3 of the said order states that as far as other allowances are concerned, the individual Sponsor Banks shall negotiate with the RRBs sponsored by them. In fact the said direction is contrary to the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in the Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999. The Government thereafter issued order No. 7(6)2005 RRB dated 25/10/2005 wherein it was stated that “basic pay and allowances” as mentioned in order dated 06/10/2005 means “basic pay, dearness pay, dearness allowances, adhoc or additional D.A, interim relief or any other allowance which form part of pay or D.A. It was also clarified that pay includes special pay also if any. Thereafter the Sponsor Bank issued order rejecting parity in respect of several allowances such as Traveling / Diem allowance, Mid academic year transfers, closing allowance, leave fare concession, transport allowance, computer allowance, cyclostyle operator allowance, house rent reimbursement, compensation on transfer, split duty allowance, petrol reimbursement etc. Even in the matter of loans, the Sponsor Bank failed to implement parity. This is in addition to unimplemented items of the past. Again when it came to the effect of revision, instead of 01/11/2002 given to the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank, it recommended 01/04/2006. In the matter of other allowances and other benefits, the Government of India as per letter dated 24/02/2006 left the matter to the discretion of the Sponsor Bank instead of taking a decision as per the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in C.A No. 2218 of 1999. 50.     Thereafter the Government of India issued letter No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 05/10/2006 addressed to the General Manager, NABARD clarifying that if computer allowance is termed as special pay, it becomes part of pay and no specific approval of the Government is required. It was also stated that in case of halting allowance/traveling/dime allowance the same appears to be part of other allowances and therefore need be decided by the Sponsor Banks in terms of the letter dated 06/10/2005. The contents of the said letter was communicated by the NABARD to all the Sponsor Banks. In accordance with the directions of the Government of India and NABARD, the second respondent bank issued circular number 22/2007 dated 01/03/2007 revising some of the “other allowances / benefits” of the employees and officers of the bank at a reduced rate causing huge disparity. Moreover instead of revising the benefits with retrospective effect, it was granted only with effect from 23/02/2007. The above action of the Central Government and Sponsor Bank is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the direction of this Honâ’ble Court.
 
L.         It is submitted that the employees of RRBsâ’ are undoubtedly entitled to parity with similarly situated employees of sponsor banks. In spite of judicial directions, the respondents have not only failed to grant parity in letter and spirit, but communication of the Ist respondent disturbs the parity even in areas where it has already been granted and widens the disparity. The said communication, apart from being contrary to the NIT award and judicial directions issued by this Honâ’ble Court is also incompetent and ultravires of Section 17(1) of the Act. 
 
M.       In Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999, this Honâ’ble Court has held the Union Government possesses the power to determine the pay structure in accordance with the second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 17 of the RRB Act and therefore the power has to be exercised soon after any pay revision of the employees of the nationalized Commercial is effected and while exercising that power, the Union Government should try to maintain the parity between the pay structure of the employees of the RRBs and the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. The Central Government ought not to have delegated its duty regarding the implementation of other allowances and benefits to the Sponsor Banks as the power in this regard is vested with the Central Government as per the RRB Act, NIT Award and judgment of this Honâ’ble Court. The disparity in the matter of allowances paid to the employees of the Sponsor Bank and employees of the respondent bank and between the employees of the RRBs inter se has occurred only due to the non-exercise of the power by the Central Government.  
           
PRAYER
 
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to;
 
(a)   Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to grant all the other allowances, benefits and other service conditions in toto, to the employees/officers of the respondent bank as applicable to the comparable posts in the sponsor bank as per various bi partite settlement/agreements/ joint notes since 22.2.1991 ie. the date of implementation of NIT Award by the Government of India;
 
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to grant arrears of pay, allowances, other benefits including HRA & CCA and allowances including computer increments/ benefits which were given to the employees and officers of commercial banks/sponsor banks in terms of various Bi-partite settlements and agreements in the Banking Industry/Government Orders/IBA Guide lines/ Amendments in Public Sector Bank Officers Service Rules after 01.11.92 from same date of effect;
 
(c) Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
 
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
 
                                                                                    FILED BY
 
                                                                                    (C.K.SASI)   
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Advocate for the Petitioner
Drawn on: 10.4.2008
Filed on: 22.4.2008
New Delhi

 
 
 
LIST OF DATES
 
1976                           The Regional Rural Banks (RRBs') were established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 with a view to develop the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs. Every Regional Rural Bank is sponsored by a commercial bank called as 'sponsor bank'. There were 196  Regional Rural Banks established all over the country and most of them are sponsored by various pubic sector banks such as State Bank of India, Associate Banks and Nationalised commercial Banks. Now the number being reduced to 92 on amalgamation, State wise and Sponsor Bank wise. Under Section 17(1) of the Act, the remuneration of officers and other employees appointed by the RRBs shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government.
 
1984                           One Sri G.S. Kaushik and All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association filed Writ Petition ( Civil) No.132 of 1984 before this Hon'ble Court. In the writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court directions were sought against Government of India and other authorities to fix the emoluments of the employees of RRBs in conformity with the laid down principles of equal pay for equal work and industry cum-region formula that are well accepted principles in wage determination in industrial jurisprudence. A direction was sought to bring about parity in pay, allowances and emoluments between the employees of RRBs inter se and with those of employees of Nationalised commercial Banks (hereinafter called the NCBs for short) who had sponsored various RRBs.
 
1.9.1987                     After hearing the said writ petitions, this Honâ’ble Court found merit in the contentions made by the Petitioners and gave an option to the respondents either appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to go into the claims of the RRB employees. The 1st respondent/Union of India appointed a Tribunal. On 1.09.1987 this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following order:
 
“We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The learned counsel for petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal. In view of the above, it is not necessary to pronounce on the questions of law raised in these writ petitions before us. We leave all the contentions open. The Central Government shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal, preferably to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, within four weeks from today. We hope that the Tribunal will pronounce its award as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly”.
 
26.11.1987                Pursuant to the directions issued by this Honâ’ble Court in Writ Petition ( Civil) No.132 of 1984 dated 1.09.1987, Government of India by its Resolution No.F.10(21)/87. RRB dated 26.11.1987 appointed the National Industrial Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Justice S.Obul Reddi, Chief Justice (Retd.) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 
The following dispute is referred to the Tribunal for its decision:
 
Dispute relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the pleadings of the parties in the Writ Petitions (Civil) No.7149.50. of 1982 and No.132 of 1984 filed in the Supreme Court of India.
 
30.4.1990                  The National Industrial Tribunal (‘NITâ’ for short) after recording elaborate evidence and hearing extensive arguments gave its Award on 30.4.1990. The National Industrial Tribunal in its Award held inter alia that the duties and functions of the officers and other employees of RRBs are similar as those officers and other employees in the comparable posts of rural branches of sponsor banks and that there is no appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector. That the role and performance of RRBs in rural development was better than those of rural branches of commercial banks .Where the two sets of posts (one in NCBs and other in RRBs) though under different enactments, are of comparable level and involve themselves in the performance of same and similar duties in the implementation of an avowed national policy of amelioration of the poverty conditions of the rural poor, it would be unjust and unreasonable to deny the RRB employees parity in the scales of pay in sponsor banks in comparable posts, having regard to similarity in the nature of duties, functions and responsibilities. That in my opinion, would be a just and equitable equation of posts.
 
16.1.1991                  The Government of India appointed an Equation Committee in terms of the direction contained at para 4.428 of the Award. Two issues that were referred to the Committee were (1) Equation of existing posts in RRBs with corresponding posts of comparable level in sponsor banks and (2) Fitment into the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits and corresponding posts. The Equation Committee submitted its report on 16.01.1991. 
 
 
22.2.1991                  Accepting the NIT Award and the Equation Committee Report, the Central Government issued directions to all the RRBs to implement the NIT Award and the Equation Committee Report with effect from 1.09.1987. Regarding payment of arrears for the period 1.09.1987 to 31.12.1990 the Government called upon the RRBs to calculate the arrears and communicate to the Government of India and NABARD as early as possible. It is pertinent to mention that pursuant to this communication, pay scales, allowances and other benefits on par with National Commercial Banks (NCBs for short) were extended to the employees of RRBs with effect from 1.09.1987.
 
29.10.1993            Pursuant to a settlement dated 29.10.1993 pension was introduced as a retirement benefits in lieu of contributory provident fund for employees of sponsor banks. This was made effective for all those who have retired from the services of the sponsor banks on or after 1.01.1986 with the actual payment of pension being made from 1.11.1993. An identical joint note was signed between the officers Trade Unions and the managements of the sponsor Banks also. Both these have been given effect to by the Pension Regulations notified by the sponsor Banks. Under these settlements, joint note and the Regulations, the employees of the sponsor Banks have been given pension as a retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund. 
 
29.10.1993                The Indian Banksâ’ Association representing the managements of 58 commercial banks which included all the NCBs which have sponsored the RRBsâ’ entered into a settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding computerization and mechanization of the Banks. As per the   settlement the workmen of sponsor Banks became eligible for computerization increment.   By this settlement the unions agreed for introduction of branch level computerization, computerization of administrative units, net working, e-banking etc. The managements agreed for grant of one advance increment with effect from 1.11.1993 and for payment of special pay for workmen who are required to perform duties of data entry operators, computer operators Advanced Ledger Posting Machine operators etc.
 
14.2.1995                  Subsequently, by the 6th Bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995 signed between the Indian Banksâ’ Association and the workmen trade unions the special pay payable to workmen employees performing various special allowance duties were enhanced. 
 
5.11.1996                  At the behest of the Central Government, the Reserve Bank of India on 5.11.1996 appointed a committee on salary and allowances of employees of Regional Rural Banks headed by one Sri S.C.Mahalik. 
 
1997                           Being aggrieved by non-extension of wage revision to the employees of RRBs with effect from 1.11.1992 pursuant to the 6th Bipartite Settlement and with effect from 1.07.1993 in so far as officers are concerned, All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association approached the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.17905 of 1997 challenging the appointment of Mahalik Committee.
 
1997                           The petitioners herein filed a Writ Petition O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 before the High Court of Kerala praying to the extend the benefit of the VIth bipartite settlement and officers wage revision and all other benefits that was implemented in the Sponsor Bank to the employees and officers of the South Malabar Gramin Bank. The petitioners had also prayed for a direction to extend the benefit of all future pay revisions as and when it is implemented in the Sponsor Bank.
 
22.7.1998                  The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners herein.
11.11.1998.               The High Court of Karnataka by Judgment dated 11.11.1998 allowed the Writ Petition No.17905 of 1997, quashing the appointment of Mahalik Committee. A direction was issued to the Central Government to extend, pay, allowances and all other benefits with effect from 1.11.1992 to all the employees of RRBs in accordance with pay, allowances and benefits implemented in respect of employees of Nationalized commercial Banks as per the memorandum of settlement dated 14.02.1995 (6th Bipartite Settlement) and as per wage revision given to officers of the Nationalised commercial Banks from 1.11.1992 and 1.07.1993 as per joint note signed between the trade unions of officers of Nationalised commercial Banks and managements. 
 
25.11.1998                The Writ Appeal 1547 of 1998 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 25-11-1998 holding interalia that whenever there is a revision of pay in Commercial banks / Sponsor banks, the employees and officers of Regional Rural Banks should also be given the same benefits.
 
1998                           The South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Central Government challenged the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A No.1547 of 1996 before this Honâ’ble Court in S.L.P (C) No. 20142/1998 which was later converted into C.A.No. 2218 of 1999.
 
1998                           During the pendency of the Civil Appeal, the Central Government had filed an Interlocutory Application for directions seeking permission to revise the scales of RRB employees. In paragraph 11 of the said I.A., the Central Government stated that they are willing to extend the benefits of the 6th and 7th bipartite settlements in part and that too for those RRBs which are earning profit. It was also stated in the said I.A., that as far as other allowances are concerned individual sponsor banks shall negotiate the same with the respective RRBs and that the revised allowances shall be paid with effect from 01/04/2000. The said package of the Central Government was strongly opposed by the petitioners and therefore this Honâ’ble Court rejected the I.A. and ultimately heard the matter on merits and delivered the judgment with the directions mentioned above.
14.12.1999                As per joint note dated 14.12.1999 signed between the Indian Banksâ’ Association and the Officers trade unions, the Officers working in the NCBs were also granted one advance increment with effect from 1.11.1993. With these settlements and joint notes, the work force in the sponsor Banks got one increment called computer increment from 1.11.1993 and individual workman who are required to perform various special allowance duties concerned with the computers also got various special pays to be paid to the workmen for the days they performed duties on computers. 
 
27.3.2000                  7th Bipartite Settlement and officers wage revision was entered into giving wage revision for workmen staff and officers employed in the NCBs with effect from 1.11.1997.   
 
31.1.2001                  This Honâ’ble Court disposed of the appeals C.A. No. 2218/1999 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank and C.A. No. 2219/1999 filed by the Central Government as per Judgment dated 31.1.2001. This Hon'ble Court held that the revision of the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks could be made only after the Central Government exercises its power under the provisions of the Act and determines the same. Regarding financial viability this Honâ’ble Court held:-
 
"This conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the award in question    not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented in the aforesaid premises it is a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which was already been resolved and has been given effect to. In our considered opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor”.
 
Regarding the question of parity this Honâ’ble Court held :-
"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 parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987"
 
The Apex Body of the petitionersâ’ organization had made several representations to the 1st respondent seeking extension of pension, grant of computerization increment, enhancement and extension of all other allowances and benefits.
 
11.4.2001                  Pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a circular on 11-4-2001 determining the pay scale of employees of the Regional Rural Banks. Instead of determining the pay revision as per the directions contained in the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, the respondents had issued the circular incorporating the very same suggestions contained in paragraph 11 of the earlier I.A. which had been rejected by this Hon'ble Court.
 
25.4.2001.                 Subsequently the Central Government issued another circular dated 25.04.2001 modifying the earlier circular. As per the said circular revised basic pay, D.A., and CCA would be payable to the RRB employees with effect from 01/11/1992 and 01/11/1997 as per the 6th and 7th bipartite settlements. It was further stated that all other allowances will be revised by respective sponsor banks after negotiations with RRB employees and would be payable with effect from 01.04.2000.
 
2001                           Since Circulars dated 11.04.2001 and 25.04.2001 were issued in total disregard to the directions of this Honâ’ble Court in the Judgment in Civil Appeal, the petitioners herein filed a Contempt Petition No.162 of 2001 before this Honâ’ble Court.
 
7.3.2002                     After hearing both sides this Honâ’ble Court found that the issuance of notification dated 11.04.2001 is not in compliance with the judgment and directions in Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999. Accordingly this Honâ’ble Court disposed of the Contempt petition on 7.3.2002 issuing the following directions:
 
1.      The employees of the Regional Rural Banks should be paid their current salaries on the basis of the determination made under the notification dated 11.4.2001, the new basic pay having arrived at, as on 1.4.2000 forthwith.
 
2.      Paragraph (I) of the Notification dated 11.4.2001 should be immediately implemented and the employees should be paid accordingly.
 
3.      Paragraph (ii) and (iii) of the notification are quashed and the Central Government is directed to issue a fresh notification for proper implementation of the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
 
4.      The arrear salary be paid in three equal installments, the first being on 30th April, 2002, the second on 30th of April, 2003 and the third on 30th of April, 2004.
 
            This Honâ’ble Court directed the Union of India that the payment has to be made without being any way dependant upon any other considerations and there cannot be any distinction between the Regional Rural Banks incurring loss and the Regional Rural Banks making profit. It was also held that the question of anticipated cash out-flow on account of increase in salary if exceeds 50% of the operating profit, then the current payment would be restricted only up to 50% is absolutely of no relevance, which was indicated in the notification dated 11.4.2001.
 
17.4.2002                  Pursuant to the Judgment in the Contempt Petition, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance issued a Circular dated 17.4.2002.
4.7.2002                     A meeting of the sponsor banks took a decision which resulted in the deprival of parity in the matter of service conditions to the employees of the RRBs granted by the NIT award which was in full force and binding and affirmed by this Honâ’ble Court. Accordingly the NABARD issued a Communication dated 30.1.2003, wherein it is advised that the employees of RRBs are not eligible to computer increment and computer allowance and has imposed severe curtail on loan facilities which are part of service conditions. This communication instead of granting parity as directed by the Honâ’ble Supreme Court has created disparities and withdrawn the parity that was already granted.
 
25.7.2002                  The petitioners filed I.A.No.10 in C.A.No. 2218/1999 on 25.7.2002 seeking various directions to the respondents to grand the benefits in terms of the Bi-partite settlements. This application was later withdrawn.
 
02.06.2005                VIIIth bipartite settlement was implemented in the Sponsor Bank with effect from 01.11.2002. Consequently as per separate orders, the pay of Officers in the Sponsor Bank was also revised with effect from 01.11.2002.
 
6.10.2005                  The Government of India issued order dated 06.10.2005 extending the benefit of the pay revision to the employees and officers of the RRBs. Clause 3 of order states that as far as other allowances are concerned, the individual Sponsor Banks shall negotiate with the RRBs sponsored by them. In fact the said direction is contrary to the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in the Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999.
 
25.10.2005                The Government thereafter issued order No. 7(6)2005 RRB dated 25/10/2005 wherein it was stated that “basic pay and allowances” as mentioned in order dated 06/10/2005 means “basic pay, dearness pay, dearness allowances, adhoc or additional D.A, interim relief or any other allowance which form part of pay or D.A. It was also clarified that pay includes special pay also if any. 
 
27.1.2006                  The NABARD called a meeting of the Sponsor Banks on 27.01.2006 and the Sponsor Bank rejected parity in respect of several allowances such as Traveling / Diem allowance, Mid academic year transfers, closing allowance, leave fare concession, transport allowance, computer allowance, cyclostyle operator allowance, house rent reimbursement, compensation on transfer, split duty allowance, petrol reimbursement etc. Even in the matter of loans the Sponsor Bank failed to implement parity. This is in addition to unimplemented items of the past. Again when it came to the effect of revision, instead of 01.11.2002 given to the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank, it recommended 01.04.2006. In the matter of other allowances and other benefits, the Government of India as per letter dated 24.02.2006 left the matter to the discretion of the Sponsor Bank instead of taking a decision as per the directions in the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in C.A No. 2218 of 1999.
 
5.10.2006                  The Government of India issued letter No.F7(6) 2005/RRB dated 05.10.2006 addressed to the General Manager, NABARD clarifying that if computer allowance is termed as special pay, it becomes part of pay and no specific approval of the Government is required. It was also stated that in case of halting allowance / traveling / dime allowance the same appears to be part of other allowances and therefore need be decided by the Sponsor Banks in terms of the letter dated 06.10.2005. 
 
1.3.2007                     In accordance with the directions of the Government of India and NABARD, the 2nd respondent bank issued Circular No. 22/2007 dated 01.03.2007 revising some of the “other allowances / benefits” of the employees and officers of the bank at a reduced rate causing huge disparity. Moreover instead of revising the benefits with retrospective effect, it was granted only with effect from 23.02.2007.
 
18.5.2007                  The 2rd respondent bank issued another Circular No. 46/2007 dated 18.5.2007 implementing computer allowances with effect from 25.4.2007 instead of 01/11/2002 as per the direction of the Government of India dated 06/10/2005 and 05/10/2006.
 
23.4.2008                  The petitioners file this Writ Petition since the benefits that were extended to the employees and officers of the Sponsor Banks were not fully extended to the employees of the 2nd respondent bank. In some of the Regional Rural Banks many of the benefits have been extended with effect from the date on which those benefits were extended in the Sponsor Banks. In some Regional Rural Banks only a very few benefits have been extended. The way in which the revision has been implemented in different Regional Rural Banks, have caused disparity even among the employees of the different Regional Rural Banks which is against the letter and spirit of the Award of NIT and the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in Civil Appeal No,. 2218 of 1999.
 

 
 
CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES
UNION AND SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK
OFFICERSâ’ FEDERATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.16
MALAPPURAM DIST., KERALA
 
 
 
RESOLUTION
 
 
The executive Committee of the Co-ordination committee of   South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation resolved to file a Writ Petition in the Honâ’ble Supreme Court India and authorized Shri K.G.Madanan, Convenor to represent the Union in the Writ Petition.
 
 
                                                                                   
                                                                                                            Sd/
                                                                                                ( Office bearer)
Malappuram
Date:

 
 
SYNOPSIS
 
The petitioners file this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to respondents for proper implementation of the directions of this Honâ’ble Court to maintain parity of the pay structure of employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks in India with pay structure of the employees and officers of the nationalized commercial banks in conformity with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act as envisaged in the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999 dated 31-1-2001 ( Reported as South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101) and in the Award dated 30.04.1990 of the National Industrial Tribunal headed by Justice Obul Reddy.
 
 
The petitioners are the co-ordination of committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation, South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation. The subject matter in this writ petition relates to the rights of the employees and officers of   all the Regional Rural Banks in India. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 seeking for direction to the respondents to the extend the benefit of the VIth bipartite settlement and officers wage revision and all other benefits that was implemented in the Sponsor Bank to the employees and officers of the South Malabar Gramin Bank. The petitioners had also prayed for a direction to extend the benefit of all future pay revisions as and when it is implemented in the Sponsor Bank as per the finding by the National Industrial Tribunal headed by Justice Obul Reddy, which culminated in the Judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union reported as (2001) 4 S.C.C 101.
 
This Honâ’ble Court disposed of the appeals C.A. No. 2218/1999 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank and C.A. No. 2219/1999 filed by the Central Government as per Judgment dated 31.1.2001. While disposing of the Appeals this Honâ’ble Court formulated three questions. The first question was whether the award passed by Justice Obul Reddy and accepted by Central Government and given effect to, can be construed to mean that the pay scales and other emoluments of the Regional Rural Banks employees would stand automatically altered as and when the pay structure of the employees of the commercial banks get revised on the basis of the so called bi-partite settlement between the employer and the employees of those commercial banks. This Hon'ble Court held that the revision of the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks could be made only after the Central Government exercises its power under the provisions of the Act and determines the same. It was further held by this Hon'ble Court that, if however the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks, then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking in to account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks.
 
The next question considered by this Hon'ble Court was whether the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks could be a vital consideration for the Central Government in determining the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. The appellants Union of India and the South Malabar Gramin Bank had contended before this Honâ’ble Court relying on the decisions of this Honâ’ble Court in ”Express Newspapers (P) Limited and another Vs Union of India and others” 1959 SCR page 12, ”Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Vs Its workman and another” 1961 (3) SCR page 536 and ”The Hindustan Times Limited, New Delhi Vs their workman” 1964 (1) SCR page234 that the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks is such that it would not be possible for the Union of India to give them pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. Distinguishing the above decisions from the facts of this case, this Honâ’ble Court held that:
 
“But the aforesaid observations cannot be pressed into service in the case in hand, where the award of Justice Obul Reddy tribunal unhesitatingly negatived the aforesaid stand of the employer and came to the positive conclusion after elaborate discussions of the purpose for which these banks were established and how a case of very special nature concerning the employees of a banking industry claiming parity with the salary structure of the employees of a sister banking industry is being considered and ultimately, the tribunal had observed that the Act has been enacted in fulfillment of the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the directive principles of the Constitution and, therefore, the performance of such institutions in furtherance of those principles is not required to judge from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or mere profit and loss statement. At any rate the aforesaid decision of the tribunal in the form of an award was implemented by the Central Government and therefore having implemented the same, it would not be permissible for the employer bank or the Union of India to take such a plea in the present proceedings.
 
This Hon'ble Court further held that:
 
"This conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the award in question    not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented in the aforesaid premises it is a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which was already been resolved and has been given effect to. In our considered opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor”.
 
The next question considered by the Honâ’ble Court was, what is the meaning of the ex-pression “parity” used by the tribunal in its award and indicating "that the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits" in paragraph 4.425 of the award of the tribunal. This Hon'ble Court held that:
 
"In view of the definition of the aforesaid ex-pression "parity" and in the context of in which the tribunal came to hold that the employees of the Regional Rural Banks would be entitled to claim 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."
 
This Hon'ble Court further held that::
 
"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 parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987"
 
It is submitted that in the light of the NIT Award and the subsequent decisions of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101, and the Judgment in Contempt Petition No 162 /2001 in CA.No 2218/1999 the action of the respondents in denying various components of “Salary Structure” as defined by NIT, including allowances, Other Benefits and Other Service Conditions to the employees of the RRBs as per the 6th ,7th and 8th Bipartite Settlements and correspondent joint notes in respect of officers contrary to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal and the law declared by this Honâ’ble Court is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjust, irrational and thus violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and employees of the RRBs under Articles 14, 16(1), 39(d) and 43 of the Constitution of India.
 
It is submitted that the meaning of the term “parity” was discussed at length by this Honâ’ble Court in the judgment and had come to the finding that the term “parity” means “equality or on par with”. This Honâ’ble Court has also cautioned the Central Government that they will not be justified in deciding the pay structure for the employees of the RRBs which would bring disparity between the two groups of employees. Accordingly while disposing of the Civil Appeals, this Honâ’ble Court while upholding the contention of the appellants with regard to the power of the Central Government to decide the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, held in clear terms that 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 Reddy decided and as was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987.
 
Hence the Writ Petition.

 
 
I N D E X
 
SL NO.                                 PARTICULARS                                  PAGE NO.
 
 
1.   Listing Performa                                                                        A
 
1A. Check List
 
1B.       Synopsis and List of Dates                                                B- S    
 
2.     Writ Petition with affidavit                                                    1- 41
 
3.   ANNEXURE-P1: True copy of the                                        42-49
      the Communication No.11/3/90/RRB(1)
issued by the Equation Committee
dated 22.02.1991
                                                                                                           
4.   ANNEXURE-P2: True copy of the                                          50-64
      Memorandum of Settlement
      dated 29.10.1993.
 
5.   ANNEXURE-P3: True copy of the                                          65-66
joint note signed between the Indian Banksâ’ Association
and the Officers trade unions
dated 14.12.1999.
 
6.   ANNEXURE-P4: True copy of the                                         67-69
      Circular F.No. 7 (5) / 95 RRB issued
      by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
      Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division)
      dated 11-04-2001.
 
7.   ANNEXURE-P5: True copy of the                                         70-71
Circular F.No. 7 (5) / 95 RRB issued by
the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division)
dated 25-04-2001.
 
8.   ANNEXURE-P6: True copy of the                                         72
Circular issued by the Central Government
dated 18.01.2002.
 
9.   ANNEXURE-P7: True copy of the                                         73-87
      Judgment in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.162 of 2001
       in C.A.No. 2218 of 1999
      dated 7.3.2002.
 
10. ANNEXURE-P8: True copy of the                                        88-89
      Circular issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance
      dated 17.4.2002
 
11. ANNEXURE-P9: True copy of the                                         90
Circular issued by the Central Government
dated 8.11.2002
 
12. ANNEXURE-P10: True copy of the                                       91-96 
      Communication issued by NABARD
      dated 30.1.2003
 
13. ANNEXURE-P11: True copy of the                                      97
Order No.F7(6) 2005/RRB
dated 06.10.2005
 
14. ANNEXURE-P12: True copy of the                                      98
Order No.F7(6) 2005/RRB
dated 25.10.2005
 
15. ANNEXURE-P13: True copy of the                                      99
Letter No.F7(6) 2005/RRB
dated 05.10.2006
 
16. ANNEXURE-P14: True copy of the                                      100
Letter No.NBIDD RRCBD/ 360/316 (BS) 2006/2007
20.11.2006 of the NABARD
 
17. ANNEXURE-P15: True copy of the                                      101-104
Circular No. 22/2007 
dated 01.03.2007
 
18. ANNEXURE-P16: True copy of the                                      105
Circular 46/2007
dated 18.5.2007

 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.          OF 2008
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank
Employees  Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank
Officersâ’ Federation                                                                                  ….…Petitioner
                                  
Versus
 
 
Union of India & Ors.                                                                      …....Respondents
 
 
 
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: C.K SASI
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.                 OF 2008
 
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Co-ordination committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank
Employees  Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank
Officersâ’ Federation                                                                                  ….…Petitioner
                                  
Versus
 
Union of India & Ors.                                                                      …....Respondents
 
AFFIDAVIT
 
I, K.G. Madanan, S/o C. Gopalan Nair, aged 44 years, residing at Ushas, Pattickad, Malappuram Dist., Kerala State, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: -
 
 
 
1.                  That I am the General Secretary of the third petitioner association in the above Writ Petition and am competent to swear this affidavit. I am competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of other petitioners also. I am conversant with the facts of the case.
 
2.                  I state that the facts stated in the pages B to S of the Synopsis and List of Dates and paragraphs 1 to 58   of the Writ Petition at pages 1 to 32   are true and correct to my knowledge. The grounds raised in the writ petition from pages 33 to 41 are based on legal advice, which I believed to be true and correct.
 
3.                  That I have not filed any other writ petition before this Honâ’ble Court or any other court seeking similar relief.
 
4.                  That the annexures appended to the writ petition are true copies of their respective originals.
 
                                                                                                D E P O N E N T
Solemnly affirmed and signed by the deponent
on this 18th day of April 2008 at my office at Ernakulam
 
 
 
Advocate
High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ( CIVIL) No. OF 2008
 
IN THE MATTER OF: -
 
1.      Co-ordination committee of
         South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees
        Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank
        Officersâ’ Federation
         represented by its Convener
        K.M.Achuthankutty
        Central Office, P.B.No.16
         Malappuram
        Malappuram District,
         KERALA STATE
     
2.      South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union
Represented by its General Secretary
K.M.Mohankumar      
P.B.No.16
Malappuram
Malappuram District
KERALA STATE
 
3.      South Malabar Gramin Bank 
         Officersâ’ Federation
represented by its General Secretary
K.G.Madanan  
P.B.No.16
Malappuram
Malappuram District
KERALA STATE                                                         …… Petitioners
 
Versus
 
1.  Union of India 
represented by the Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs
Banking Division
Jeevan Deep Building
Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001
 
2. The South Malabar Gramin Bank,
Represented by its Chairman,
Head Office, Up Hill, Malappuram,
KERALA STATE, Pin 676 505.                                   ……Respondents
 
 
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
 
To
 
The Honâ’ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
 
Humble petition of the petitioner
 
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
 
1.         The petitioners South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation and Co-ordination committee of   South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation file this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to respondents for proper implementation of the directions of this Honâ’ble Court to introduce pension scheme in order to maintain parity of the pay structure of employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks in India with pay structure of the employees and officers of the nationalized commercial banks in conformity with Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act as envisaged in the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999 dated 31-1-2001 ( Reported as South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101) and in the Award dated 30/04/1990 of the National Industrial Tribunal headed by Justice Obul Reddy.
 
 
2.         This Honâ’ble Court in the Judgment in South Malabar Gramin Bankâ’s case (supra) while directing the Central Government to exercise powers under Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act 1976 ( herein after referred to as the Act ) to determine the pay structure of the employees of Regional Rural Banks ( herein after referred to as RRBs) observed that if the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking into account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks (hereinafter referred to as NCBs ).
 
3.         The subject matter in this writ petition relates to the rights of the employees and officers of   all the Regional Rural Banks in India to get pension. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 which culminated in the Judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union reported as (2001) 4 S.C.C 101. The petitioner seeks directions from this Honâ’ble Court to the respondents to implement the pension scheme in RRBs and thus implement in toto the pay structure of the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank to the employees and officers of RRBs as per the directions of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101.
 
4.         The Regional Rural Banks (RRBs') were established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 with a view to develop the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs. Every Regional Rural Bank is sponsored by a commercial bank called as 'sponsor bank'. There were 196  Regional Rural Banks established all over the country and most of them are sponsored by various pubic sector banks such as State Bank of India, Associate Banks and Nationalised Commercial Banks. Now the number being reduced to 90 on amalgamation, State wise and Sponsor Bank wise. Under Section 17(1) of the Act, the remuneration of officers and other employees appointed by the RRBs shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government.
 
5.         In the year 1984, one Sri G.S. Kaushik and All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association filed Writ Petition ( Civil) No.132 of 1984 before this Hon'ble Court . Some other petitions were also filed by another set of RRB employees. In the writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court directions were sought against Government of India and other authorities to fix the emoluments of the employees of RRBs in conformity with the laid down principles of equal pay for equal work and industry cum-region formula that are well accepted principles in wage determination in industrial jurisprudence. A direction was sought to bring about parity in pay, allowances and emoluments between the employees of RRBs inter se and with those of employees of Nationalised Commercial Banks who had sponsored various RRBs.
 
6.         At the time of filing of the above said writ petitions, the Reserve Bank of India had a consultative status in the matter of wage determination under RRBs Act which was taken away by subsequent amendment to RRBs Act. The above claim of the petitioners was based on several grounds viz., (a) that both RRBs and its employees and the NCBs and its employees whose principal employer is the Government of India are carrying on the same activities and performing the same nature of duties, (b) that despite this there is a wide disparity between the emoluments paid to the RRB employees sponsored by NCBs and the employees of the NCBs, (c) that besides wide disparities exist inter se between the employees of various RRBs themselves in the matter of pay and allowances. (d) that these inequities and discriminations are being perpetrated under the purported cover of Section 17 of the Act and equation with the employees of State Governments, and (e) that the employees of RRBs are entitled to same salary, allowances and benefits as are admissible to the NCB employees of comparable posts and status.
 
7.         After hearing the said writ petitions, this Honâ’ble Court found merit in the contentions made by the Petitioners and gave an option to the respondents to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to go into the claims of the RRB employees. The 1st respondent/Union of India appointed a Tribunal. On 1.09.1987 this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following order:
 
“We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The learned counsel for petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal. In view of the above, it is not necessary to pronounce on the questions of law raised in these writ petitions before us. We leave all the contentions open. The Central Government shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal, preferably to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, within four weeks from today. We hope that the Tribunal will pronounce its award as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly”.
           
           
 
 
8.         Pursuant to the directions issued by this Honâ’ble Court in Writ Petition ( Civil) No.132 of 1984 dated 1.09.1987, Government of India by its Resolution No.F.10(21)/87. RRB dated 26.11.1987 appointed the National Industrial Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Justice S.Obul Reddi, Chief Justice (Retd.) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The text of the said resolution read as follows:-
 
"No.F.l0(21)/87 - RRB Whereas the two Writ Petitions (Civil Nos.7149 50 of 1982 and 132 of 1984) were filed in the Supreme Court of India by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gautam and others and Sri G.S.Kaushik and others against, among others, Union of India and Jaipur Naguar Anchalik Gramin Bank, Jaipure, Rajasthan and Union of India and Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Gurgaon, Haryana respectively seeking inter alia, parity with employees of the Nationalised Banks in respect of pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits.
 
1.         Whereas the Central Government had contended before the Supreme Court that both the petitions were misconceived and should be dismissed; and whereas, after hearing both sides, the Supreme Court passed on 1st September, 1987 the following order:
 
“We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The learned counsel for petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal. In view of the above, it is not necessary to pronounce on the questions of law raised in these writ petitions before us. We leave all the contentions open. The Central Government shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal, preferably to a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, within four weeks from today. We hope that the Tribunal will pronounce its award as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly".
 
2.         Now, therefore, in· terms of the said order of the Supreme Court, the Central Government hereby appoint a National Industrial Tribunal consisting of Sri Justice S.Obul Reddi, retired Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh as its Chairman.
 
3.         The following dispute is referred to the Tribunal for its decision:
 
Dispute relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the pleadings of the parties in the Writ Petitions (Civil) No.7149.50. of 1982 and No.132 of 1984 filed in the Supreme Court of India.
 
4.         The Headquarters of the Tribunal shall be at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
 
5.         The Tribunal shall have the power to regulate its own procedures including the fixing of place and times of enquiry. The tribunal may appoint such advisers, institutions and Consultants as it may consider necessary for any particular purpose. The tribunal may call for such information and take evidence as it may consider, necessary.
 
6.         The Ministries/Departments of Government of India, the Regional Rural Banks and Public Sector Banks will furnish such information, documents and other assistance as may be required by the Tribunal. It is expected that the Service Associations/Workers Unions concerned with the Regional Rural Banks and the respective state Governments will extend to the Tribunal their fullest co-operation and assistance.
 
7.         The Tribunal will make its award within a period of six months from the date of assumption of its office. This period may, however, be extended by the Central Government, considered appropriate.
 
8.         The decisions of the Tribunal shall be final and binding ORDERED that the Resolution be published in the Gazette of India. ORDERED also that the copy of the Resolution be communicated to the Ministries/Departments of the Central Government, all State Governments/Union Territories, all public sector banks, Regional Rural Banks, Supreme Court of India, All High Courts and the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions.
 
                                                                        A. K. AGARWAL, Joint Secretary.”
 
9.         Before the National Industrial Tribunal (‘NITâ’ for short), the Central Government, Reserve Bank of India, NABARD, NCBs, State Bank of India, State Bank of Hyderabad, all appeared in addition to the RRBs. Indian Banks Association, the Apex body of the managements of the commercial Banks got impleaded but did not participate in the proceedings. The NIT after recording elaborate evidence and hearing extensive arguments gave its Award on 30.4.1990. 
 
10.       The National Industrial Tribunal in its Award held that the NIT is properly constituted (para 4.13 of the Award). It was further held that :-
“Undisputedly the commercial banks and RRBs carry on similar banking business and participate in the development of rural economy as partners in the rural development acting as instrumentalities of the State in accordance with the directive principles of the Constitution. Establishment of RRBs is to fill in the vacuum in the economic development of the rural sector. It is a national objective in direction of ushering in a welfare State. That the RRBs have brought about a socio economic reformation in the lives of the small farmers, traders, agricultural labourers, artisans, SC/STs and weaker sections is borne out by the evidence on record. That the duties and functions of the officers and other employees of RRBs are similar as those officers and other employees in the comparable posts of rural branches of sponsor banks and that there is no appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector. That the role and performance of RRBs in rural development was better than those of rural branches of commercial banks (Para 4.102). Where the two sets of posts (one in NCBs and other in RRBs) though under different enactments, are of comparable level and involve themselves in the performance of same and similar duties in the implementation of an avowed national policy of amelioration of the poverty conditions of the rural poor, it would be unjust and unreasonable to deny the RRB employees parity in the scales of pay in sponsor banks in comparable posts, having regard to similarity in the nature of duties, functions and responsibilities. That in my opinion, would be a just and equitable equation of posts. This findings is recorded by me, having regard to ex-pression “having regard to” as of sufficient dimension adaptable and supple to extend its application to the salary structure of the Nationalised Bank Employees (Para 1.188). When losses are on in the increases, even in the rural branches of commercial banks, the RRBs cannot be singled out to bear the cross. Ghost of profitability should not haunt us in judging the performance of RRBs. Establishment of RRBs is a national commitment in the direction of ushering in a welfare State. The Act has been enacted to fulfill mandate of the Constitution, to fulfill the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution and performance of RRBs established in furtherance of these principles, shall not be judged from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or from mere profit and loss statements (para 4.239). The NIT thus come to conclude that financial liability of RRBs is an irrelevant criterion in extending parity in service conditions between employees of RRBs and NCBs (Paragraphs 4.189 4.239). There is no justification in equating employees of State Government and local authorities as of comparable level and status with the employees of the RRBs in the notified area (Para 4.240 to 4.260). 
 
The petitioner craves leave to produce and rely on the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition.
 
11.       Some of the important findings and directions issued by the NIT Award in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition are as follows:-
 
“4.102. The duties and functions of the Officers and other employees of the RRBs are similar as those officers and other employees in the comparable posts of rural branches of sponsor banks. There is not any appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector. If the RRBs did not involve themselves in all the business transactions referred to in Section 6 of the B.R.Act, it is because of the restrictions imposed by the Central Government/NABARD having regard to Sub-Section (2) to Section 18 of the RRB Act. The evidence and the statistics amply establish that the role and performance of RRBs in rural development was better than those of rural branches of commercial banks. They have an edge over commercial bank branches in regard to their accessibility to weaker sections and target group. The superiority of the RRBs over the rural branches of sponsor banks has been found by the various impact studies made and the reports of Dantwala Committee and CRAFICARD. There is no difference in regard to the workload between the two kinds of branches. Some Chariman of the RRBs have given all facilities to RRB branches in regard to overdraft, cash credit limit to agriculturists, non-agriculturists, bank guarantees, bills, purchases, issue of demand drafts, advances to transport operators, small scale industries, gold loans etc. In such of those branches where these facilities are available the evidence establishes, so far as the workload is concerned, the workload in RRBs is on par with the workload of Sponsor Banks. All this is said by respondent No.1 (Central Government) in its counter is that “the fact that the RRBs also carry on the same or similar functions as the nationalized commercial banks cannot be a ground for imposing the pay scales of nationalized commercial banks”. This admission that the functions are similar is very significant. It is well to remember that out of 196 RRBs, the Chairman of 112 RRBs in their answers to the questionnaire replied that “the duties and functions of various officers and members of the staff are same and similar as those of the corresponding posts in the nationalized Banks”. 23 Chairmen said “to some extent” and only 6 Chairmen said “they are not comparable”. The persons competent to judge similarity of functions are the Chairman of the banks who are no other than the officers of the sponsor banks. Indisputably commercial banks and RRBs carry on similar banking business and participate in the development of rural economy as partners in the rural development acting as instrumentalities of the State in accordance with the Directive Principles of the Constitution. Establishment of RRBs is to fill in the vacuum in the economic development of the rural sector. It is a national objective in the direction of ushering in a welfare state. That the RRBs have brought about a socio-economic reformation in the lives of the small farmers, traders, agricultural laboures, artisans, SC/STs and weaker sections is borne out by the evidence on record.”
 
4.239. Now we are dealing with a case of special nature concerning the employees of a banking industry claiming parity with the salary structure of employees of a sister banking industry, which alone is comparable in terms of duties, functions and responsibilities. The RRB Act places special emphasis on the development of rural economy by providing credit and other facilities to productive activities in the rural areas, particularly to small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs, and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The reasons and objects of the Act provide a highway for the social welfare and common good of the rural poor living in the priority sector. The preamble of the Constitution envisages to all citizens social, economic and political justice. Article 38 in Part IV enjoins on the State to promote the welfare of the people and to bring about a social order where social, economic and political justice prevail in all the institutions of national life. In particular, the State is asked to strive to minimize the inequalities in income and eliminate inequalities in status. The RRBs have brought about socio economic revolution in the hitherto unbanked under-developed priority sector by ameliorating the poverty conditions of the under-privileged, ST/STs and other weaker sections of the society. That is the paramount objective of the Act. It should not be lost sight of the fact that the total losses suffered by rural branches of commercial banks is undeniably more than the total losses suffered by the RRBs. But, the losses of the rural branches of commercial banks are made up by the other branches in semi urban and urban areas and the RRBs unfortunately for them cannot transfer the losses to their sponsor banks. The object and purpose is the economic development of the target groups and the achievements in that field certainly outweigh considerations of viability or losses. When the losses are on the increase even the rural branches of commercial banks, the RRBs alone cannot be singled out to bear the cross. I can find no better authority than the Chairman of the NABARD who categorically state that the “ghost of profitability” should not haunt us in judging the performance of the RRBs. Establishment of RRBs is a national commitment in the direction of ushering in a welfare State, and that is a mandate of the Constitution. It is in fulfillment of the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution that the RRB Act has been enacted and the performance of such institutions in furtherance of those principles, shall not be judged from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or from mere profit and loss statements.”  
 
“4.425. What flows from my findings is that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with the Officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits.  What stems from this finding is the date from which effect should be given to the Award. I have given my anxious consideration as to the date from which the Award should be given effect. The Writ Petition No.7149.50/82 and 132/84 were not filed at one and the same time. They were filed on different dates. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7149-50/82 claimed reliefs from the date of establishment of RRBs. Petitioners in W.P.No. 132/84 did not specify any date but in their claim statement filed before me they have asked for effect being given from the date of Writ Petition i.e., 16.09.1984. I think it would be proper, just and reasonable, if I direct that the Award shall be given effect from 1st day of September, 1987, the date on which the Supreme Court passed the order directing the Central Government to constitute the Tribunal.
 
4.426. Then the next question is what should be the position prior to 1st day of September, 1987. Dealing with the point No.12, I observed in para 4.357:
 
            ………”The salary structure referred to in the second proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act takes in its fold not only the monthly salary but also all allowances and benefits that are attached to that post. That being the case, there is absolutely no reason for the Central Government to allow only certain allowances and benefits and deny the rest. This definitely is discriminatory. After having equated them to the salary structure of the State Government employees, the Government cannot say that they equated the Officers and employees only to the extent of the scale of pay and related allowances and denied the rest of allowances and benefits. It is significant to note that it is not as if Government denied all the facilities demanded by the employees in para-2 of letter No.F.2.32/80-RRB dated 5.02.1980. Subsequently, the Central Government did concede certain allowances and benefits on par with the State Government servants. There are several cases like medical facilities traveling allowances, casual leave, privilege leave, leave encashment facility, leave fare concession, festival advance, vehicle maintenance allowance, accumulation of earned leave, cash allowance etc. which are allowed, but they are not on par with the benefits enjoyed by the employees of State Government. In my view, the salary structure when applied to the Officers/employees of RRBs, should be extended wholly so as to cover all such benefits and allowances as are admissible to the State Government employees in comparable posts and status. This will atleast bring about uniformity in each of the states concerned”.
 
4.427. Having regard to the above, in order to eliminate the anomalies and bring about uniformity in the pay scales in all the RRBs at least to the extent of each State, I find that they will be entitled to all the allowances, benefits which the State Government servants of comparable level and status are entitled to. They will, therefore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc., till 31st day of August, 1987.
 
4.428 So far as the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for Officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the Officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scales of pay as are applicable to officers of sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. This will also include the pay scales, benefits, other allowances and fitment of sub-staff of the RRBs with the sub-staff of sponsor banks. This Award is accordingly passed and it shall cover at the existing RRBs. The Award shall be given effect to from 1st day of September, 1987.”
 
12.       The Government of India appointed an Equation Committee in terms of the direction contained at para 4.428 of the Award. Two issues that were referred to the Committee were (1) Equation of existing posts in RRBs with corresponding posts of comparable level in sponsor banks and (2) Fitment into the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits and corresponding posts. The Equation Committee submitted its report on 16.01.1991. 
 
13.       Accepting the NIT Award and the Equation Committee Report, the Central Government issued directions to all the RRBs to implement the NIT Award and the Equation Committee Report with effect from 1.09.1987. Regarding payment of arrears for the period 1.09.1987 to 31.12.1990 the Government called upon the RRBs to calculate the arrears and communicate to the Government of India and NABARD as early as possible. It is pertinent to mention that pursuant to this communication, pay scales, allowances and other benefits on par with National Commercial Banks were extended to the employees of RRBs with effect from 1.09.1987. A copy of the Communication No.11/3/90/RRB(1) issued by the Equation Committee dated 22.02.1991 is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-P1. 
 
14.       As on 1.09.1987 the pay scales and allowances of the workmen of NCBs were governed by IVth Bipartite Settlement. There was revision of pay scales and allowances of NCB workmen pursuant to Vth Bipartite Settlement which came into effect from 1.11.1987. Similarly in respect of officer employees of NCBs also wage revision was given effect to from 1.11.1987. The 1st respondent implemented the pay and allowances as per IVth bipartite settlement with effect from 01/09/1987 and as per Vth bipartite settlement with effect from 01/11/1987 to RRB employees as the revised terms applicable to NCB officers to the officers of RRBs from 1.09.87 and 1.11.1987 respectively.
 
15.     Pursuant to a settlement dated 29.10.1993 pension was introduced as a retirement benefits in lieu of contributory provident fund for employees of sponsor banks. This was made effective for all those who have retired from the services of the sponsor banks on or after 1.01.1986 with the actual payment of pension being made from 1.11.1992. An identical joint note was signed between the officers Trade Unions and the managements of the sponsor Banks also on 27.11.95. Both these have been given effect to by the Pension Regulations notified by the sponsor Banks on 29.09.1995. Under these settlements, joint note and the Regulations, the employees of the sponsor Banks have been given pension as a retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund. 
 
16.       In the year 1997, the petitioners herein filed a Writ Petition O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 before the High Court of Kerala praying to extend the benefit of the VIth bipartite settlement and officers wage revision and all other benefits that was implemented in the Sponsor Bank to the employees and officers of the South Malabar Gramin Bank. The petitioners had also prayed for a direction to extend the benefit of all future pay revisions as and when it is implemented in the Sponsor Bank. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners herein as per judgment dated 22.07.1998.
 
17.       The Writ Appeal 1547 of 1998 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 1871 of 1997 was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 25-11-1998 holding inter alia that whenever there is a revision of pay in Commercial banks / Sponsor banks, the employees and officers of Regional Rural Banks should also be given the same benefits.
 
18.       The South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Central Government challenged the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A No.1547 of 1996 before this Honâ’ble Court in S.L.P (C) No. 20142/1998 which was later converted into C.A.No. 2218 of 1999.
 
19.       This Honâ’ble Court disposed of the appeals C.A. No. 2218/1999 filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank and C.A. No. 2219/1999 filed by the Central Government as per Judgment dated 31.1.2001. While disposing of the Appeals this Honâ’ble Court formulated three questions. The first question was whether the award passed by Justice Obul Reddy and accepted by Central Government and given effect to, can be construed to mean that the pay scales and other emoluments of the Regional Rural Banks employees would stand automatically altered as and when the pay structure of the employees of the commercial banks get revised on the basis of the so called bi-partite settlement between the employer and the employees of those commercial banks. This Hon'ble Court held that the revision of the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks could be made only after the Central Government exercises its power under the provisions of the Act and determines the same. It was further held by this Hon'ble Court that, if however the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks, then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking in to account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks.
 
20.       The next question considered by this Hon'ble Court was whether the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks could be a vital consideration for the Central Government in determining the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. The appellants Union of India and the South Malabar Gramin Bank had contended before this Honâ’ble Court relying on the decisions of this Honâ’ble Court in ”Express Newspapers (P) Limited and another Vs Union of India and others” 1959 SCR page 12, Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Vs Its workman and another 1961 (3) SCR page 536 and The Hindustan Times Limited, New Delhi Vs their workman 1964 (1) SCR page234 that the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks is such that it would not be possible for the Union of India to give them pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. Distinguishing the above decisions from the facts of this case, this Honâ’ble Court held that:
 
“But the aforesaid observations cannot be pressed into service in the case in hand, where the award of Justice Obul Reddy tribunal unhesitatingly negatived the aforesaid stand of the employer and came to the positive conclusion after elaborate discussions of the purpose for which these banks were established and how a case of very special nature concerning the employees of a banking industry claiming parity with the salary structure of the employees of a sister banking industry is being considered and ultimately, the tribunal had observed that the Act has been enacted in fulfillment of the hopes and aspirations aroused in the preamble and the directive principles of the Constitution and, therefore, the performance of such institutions in furtherance of those principles is not required to judge from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or mere profit and loss statement. At any rate the aforesaid decision of the tribunal in the form of an award was implemented by the Central Government and therefore having implemented the same, it would not be permissible for the employer bank or the Union of India to take such a plea in the present proceedings.
 
This Hon'ble Court further held that:
 
"This conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the award in question    not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented in the aforesaid premises it is a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which was already been resolved and has been given effect to. In our considered opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor”.
 
21.       The next question considered by the Honâ’ble Court was, what is the meaning of the ex-pression “parity” used by the tribunal in its award and indicating "that the officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits" in paragraph 4.425 of the award of the tribunal. This Hon'ble Court held that:
 
"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 parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987"
 
22.       It is submitted that the employees and officers of RRBs are entitled to parity in the matter of salary, allowances and other benefits including pension. It is submitted that when pension scheme is introduced in sponsor banks, the same should have been implemented in the RRBs also so as to maintain parity in the pay structure in tune with the award of NIT and also as per the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank case.
 
23.       The Apex Body of the petitionersâ’ organization, All India Regional Rural Banks Employees Association (AIRRBEA) and the petitioners had made several representations to the Government of India from 2001 onwards seeking implementation of pension in RRBs.
 
24.       On the basis of the representation submitted by the apex body of the petitioners Sri. Basudeb Acharia, Member of Parliament raised the issue of parity of superannuation benefits of officers and employees of RRBs with their counter parts in nationalized commercial banks on 16.3.2001 in the Loksabha. The Minister of State for Finance, Government of India replied that due to their precarious financial condition, RRBs are not in a position to provide parity in payment of pension to its employees at par with sponsor banks. A copy of the unstarred Question No. 3043 in the Loksabha and the Answer by the Minister dated 16.3.2001 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P2.
 
25.       The apex body of the petitioner organization made many representations before the Government seeking to implementation of superannuation benefits in RRBs at par with sponsor banks. When there was no response from the Government the apex body of the petitioners along with other unions of employees of RRBs started various forms of agitations which resulted in Conciliation proceedings initiated by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi.
 
26.       In June 2007 the apex body of the petitioners along with other Unions of employees of RRBs participated in the Conciliation proceedings before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at New Delhi regarding implementing pension in RRBs. The conciliation proceedings continued upto October 2007. The Conciliation could not succeed due to the stand of the Central Government. The stand of the Government in not implementing pension scheme in RRBs as understood by the petitioner is that the RRBs do not have the financial capacity to meet the expenditure for implementing the pension scheme. 
 
27.       It is submitted that in view of the specific finding by this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank case , the financial viability of the RRBs is not a ground for denying any benefit to the employees of RRBs. One of the questions raised in that judgment is that whether the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks could be a vital consideration for the Central Government in determining the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. This Hon'ble Court further held that:
 
"This conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the award in question    not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented in the aforesaid premises it is a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which was already been resolved and has been given effect to. In our considered opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor”.
           
It is submitted that the denial of pension to the RRB employees and officers on the ground of financial viability is contrary to the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court and the respondent cannot raise the concluded issue of financial condition of RRBs and burden thereon.
 
28.       As the efforts of the petitioner and its apex body to get the pension scheme implemented in the RRBs failed, they requested Sri. Basudeva Acharia M.P. to   approach the Government on their behalf. Sri. Basudeva Acharia M.P sent a Letter dated 7.1.2008 to the Prime Minister to consider the issue of implementation of superannuation benefits in the RRBs in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the said letter also no action was taken. A copy of the Letter sent by Sri. Basudeva Acharia M.P dated 7.1.2008 to the Prime Minister is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P3.
 
29.       It is settled law that pension is not a bounty but deferred salary and it is akin to right to property. It is also correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employee as on the date of retirement.( add more)
 
30.       When the pay structure of sponsor bank employees is revised from time to time by Bipartite settlements, the increase in the total emoluments included various components such as basic pay, DA, HRA, other allowances and superannuation benefits. The total financial load is calculated taking all these components into consideration. The RRB employee is denied of the portion of load due to denial of parity in superannuation benefits as pension scheme is not implemented in the RRBs. Thus a major component in the revised benefits in the area of pension are denied to the employees of RRBs causing disparity in the pay structure of the RRB employees and the employees in sponsor banks, which   is contrary to the principle of parity as explained and settled by this Honâ’ble Court. It is submitted that this disparity is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
 
31.       The employees working in RRBs are presently given only the benefit of pension scheme provided in the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. As per this scheme the amount of pension receivable by an employee is very meager. An employee working as a clerk in an RRB who retires   after 20 years service would receive only Rs.1000/- without any DA benefit that is static in nature, whereas an employee who put in same service will get an approximate monthly pension of Rs.8000/- with periodical increase in DA and revision of pension . An officer working in RRB having 30 years would get a monthly pension of Rs.1200/- as against his counterparts pension of Rs.22,000/- per month. It is submitted that there is a huge disparity in the pension which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A comparative chart showing disparity in quantum of pension received by the employees and officers of RRBs and their counter part in sponsor banks dated nil is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-P4. 
 
32.       It is submitted that in view of the direction contained in the judgment passed by this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank case that the Central Government would be duty bound to maintain parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987, the Central Government is liable to implement pension in RRBs.
 
33.       It is submitted that the denial of pension to RRB employees while their counter parts in sponsor banks receiving pension causes huge disparity. It is submitted that this disparity is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and against the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union ((2001) 4 S.C.C 101).
 
34.       It is submitted that the petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Honâ’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, against the violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and for the implementation of the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in C.A. No. 2218 of 1999. This Honâ’ble Court in the judgment observed as follows:-
 
“If the Central Government fails to discharge its obligation as in the case in hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the Commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks then a mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for performance of its duties and the Central Government would be bound to perform its duties, taking into account all germane factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision of the employees of the nationalized commercial banks”.
 
It is submitted that the Central Government now failed to discharge its obligation under Section 17 of the Act by denying the pension to the RRB employees. It is further submitted that the subject matter of this writ petition affect all the employees of Regional Rural Banks in the country. It is submitted that an authoritative pronouncement is needed from this Honâ’ble Court on the questions raised in the present writ petition to avoid multiplicity of litigations in different High Courts.
 
 
      The petitioner files the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of its fundamental rights on the following among other: -
 
G R O U N D S
 
A.        Because in the light of the NIT Award and the subsequent decisions of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employeesâ’ Union (2001) 4 S.C.C 101, the action of the respondents in denying pension is contrary to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal and the law declared by this Honâ’ble Court is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjust, irrational and thus violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and employees of the RRBs under Articles 14, 16(1), 39(d) and 43 of the Constitution of India.
                 
B.        Because the meaning of the term “parity” was discussed at length by this Honâ’ble Court in the judgment and had come to the finding that the term “parity” means “equality or on par with”. This Honâ’ble Court has also cautioned the Central Government that they will not be justified in deciding the pay structure for the employees of the RRBs which would bring disparity between the two groups of employees. Accordingly while disposing of the Civil Appeals, this Honâ’ble Court while upholding the contention of the appellants with regard to the power of the Central Government to decide the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, held in clear terms that there cannot be any doubt that in so deciding, the Central Government would be duty bound to maintain parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddy decided and as was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987. The employees and officers of RRBs are entitled to parity in the matter of salary, allowances and other benefits. It is submitted that when pension scheme is introduced in sponsor banks , the same should have been implemented in the RRBs also so as to maintain parity in the pay structure in tune with the direction of this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank case.
 
C.        Because in the Government Order appointing the National Industrial Tribunal as per the Judgment passed by this Honâ’ble Court dated 1.9.1987, the dispute referred to the Tribunal was :- “  Dispute relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the pleadings of the parties in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 7149-50/82and 132/84 filed in the Supreme Court of India. The decisions of the Tribunal shall be final and binding”. In Paragraph 4.425 of the Award Justice Obul Reddy has held that:
 
“What flows from my findings is that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with Officers and other employees of the Sponsor Banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits. “
 
             The NIT in Paragraph 4.357 observed that:-
    “To the extent it concerns this point, I hold that the Officers and other employees of RRBs will be entitled to all other allowances and benefits which are till now denied to them, but enjoyed by those employees of comparable level and status in State Govt. service………”.
 
It was further observed by the Tribunal in Paragraph 4. 426 that:-
“The salary structure referred to in the second proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act takes in its fold not only the monthly salary but also all allowances and benefits that are attached to that post”
In para 4.427 it was observed that
“ Having regard to the above, in order to eliminate the anomalies and bring about uniformity in the pay scales in all the RRBs at least to the extent of each State, I find that they will be entitled to all the allowances, benefits which the State Government servants of comparable level and status are entitled to. They will, therefore, be only entitled to claim the difference in allowances and other benefits, so as to bring about uniformity with the State Government employees in all matters of pay scales, allowances, benefits etc., till 31st day of August, 1987.”
 
In Paragraph 4. 428 it was further observed that:-
           
“ So far as the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scales of pay as are applicable to officers of sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level.”
 
These benefits and allowances they shall enjoy up to the 31st day of August, 1987 and from 1st day of September 1987, they would be governed by the relief granted under point No. 14 of the Award. That being the case there is absolutely no reason for the Central Govt. to allow only certain allowances and benefits and deny the rest of the benefits. After having equated them to the salary structure of the Commercial bank employees, the Govt. cannot deny pension also. It is submitted that on a reading of the NIT Award with the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court, it is unambiguously clear that the employees and officers of the RRB are entitled to parity not only in the matter of pay scales but also with regard to all allowances and other benefits including pensionary benefits that are being paid to their counter parts in the Nationalised Commercial Banks.
 
D.        It is submitted that the petitioner is legally entitled to pension in view of the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court. It is submitted that pension is a social security measure and assumes the place of a fundamental right of an employee who has spent his entire effective life for the employer. The employees of RRBs have also sacrificed their entire life for the institution they serve and the denial of pension in the last days in their life is unjustified.
 
E.         It is settled law that pension is not a bounty but deferred salary and it is akin to right to property. It is also correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employee as on the date of retirement. In the instant case there is a direction by the Supreme Court that the RRB employees are entitled to parity of the pay structure and other benefits. The term other benefits includes pension also and therefore the denial of pension to RRB employees is illegal and violative of the direction of this Honâ’ble Court.
 
F.         There is disparity in the pay structure of the RRB employees and the employees in sponsor banks which is violative of Article 14. This disparity is evident from the fact that when the pay structure of sponsor bank employee is enhanced from time to time by Bipartite settlements, the increase in the total emoluments included various components such as basic pay , DA . HRA , other allowances and superannuation benefits. The total financial load is calculated taking all these components into consideration. The RRB employee is denied of the portion of load due to denial of parity in superannuation benefits as pension scheme is not implemented in the RRBs. Thus a major component in the revised benefits in the area of pension are denied to the employees of RRBs causing disparity in the pay structure of the RRB employees and the employees in sponsor banks, which   is contrary to the principle of parity as explained and settled by this Honâ’ble Court.
 
G.        There is a huge disparity in the amount of pension received by the retired employees of RRBs and retired employees of sponsor banks. An employee working as a clerk in an RRB who retires   after 20 years service would receive only Rs.1000/- without any DA benefit that is static in nature, whereas an employee who put in same service in sponsor banks will get an approximate monthly pension of Rs.8000/- with periodical increase in DA and revision of pension . An officer working in RRB having 30 years service would get a monthly pension of Rs.1200/- without any DA benefit as against his counterpartâ’s pension of Rs.22,000/- per month with periodical increase in DA and revision of pension. It is submitted that there is a huge disparity in the pension which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
 
H.        The stand of the Government in not implementing pension scheme in RRBs as understood by the petitioner is that the RRBs do not have the financial capacity to meet the expenditure for implementing the pension scheme. It is submitted that in view of the specific finding by this Honâ’ble Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank case , the financial viability of the RRBs is not a ground for denying any benefit to the employees of RRBs. One of the questions raised in that judgment is that whether the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks could be a vital consideration for the Central Government in determining the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. This Hon'ble Court further held that:
 
"This conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the award in question    not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented in the aforesaid premises it is a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which was already been resolved and has been given effect to. In our considered opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor”.
            It is submitted that the denial of pension to the RRB employees and officers on the ground of financial viability is contrary to the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court and the respondent cannot raise the concluded issue of financial condition of RRBs and burden thereon.
 
I.          It is submitted that the question that was referred to the National Industrial Tribunal for its decision was whether the employees and officers of RRBs should be given the same pay, allowances and other benefits that are given to employees and officers of Sponsor banks. The decision of the NIT was that there was functional parity and that the employees and officers of RRBs are entitled to be given the pay, allowances and other service benefits that are given to employees and officers holding comparable posts in Sponsor banks. This Honâ’ble Court also held that the employees of the RRBs are entitled to parity in the matter of pay structure and other benefits with the employees of the Sponsor banks. In view of the above all allowances and other benefits as are given to the employees of the Sponsor banks are to be extended to the employees of the RRBs from the date from which the said benefits are given to the employees of the Sponsor bank so as to maintain parity at all points of time. The term other benefits includes pension and other superannuation benefits also. Due to the non implementation of the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court in letter and spirit, the disparity in pay, allowances and other benefits including pension between the employees and officers of the Sponsor Bank and RRBs have widened considerably causing gross disparity at this point of time. Denial of pension to the employees and officers of RRBs at the same rate that is being given to the employees and officers of the Sponsor banks would amount to disparity and violative of the judgment of this Honâ’ble Court and the Award of the NIT.
 
PRAYER
 
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to;
 
(a)         Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to implement pension scheme and other superannuation benefits as given to the employees of nationalized commercial bank as per Bi partite settlements and agreements;
 
(b)       Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
 
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
 
                                                                                    FILED BY
 
                                                                                    (C.K.SASI)   
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Advocate for the Petitioner
 
Drawn on:
Filed on:
New Delhi

 
 
CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES
UNION AND SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK
OFFICERSâ’ FEDERATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.16
MALAPPURAM DIST., KERALA
 
 
 
RESOLUTION
 
 
The executive Committee of the Co-ordination committee of   South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees    Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank   Officersâ’ Federation resolved to file a Writ Petition in the Honâ’ble Supreme Court India and authorized Shri K.G.Madanan, Convenor to represent the Union in the Writ Petition.
 
 
                                                                                   
                                                                                                            Sd/
                                                                                                ( Office bearer)
Malappuram
Date:

 
 
All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association
President: Ajit Ghosh                                                                       GOLDERS GREEN, Ground Floor F .G. Block    
General Secretary: Dilip Kumar Mukherjee                                    1, Najrul Islam Avenue (V.I.P. ROAD)
                                                                                                            Kaikhali, Kolkata 52
 
 
Other Allowances and Benefits / Service Conditions as allowed in Bipartite settlement in the Banking Industry to the comparable post / Cadre of RRB staff as equated by GOI in its order dated 22.2.1991, 20.03.1993 and 31.07.2001
1.      Pension Benefit As per scheme in the Banking Industry from 1.11.92 (Bipartite settlement dated 29.10.93)
2.      Provident Fund as applicable in Sponsor Banks /“Banking Industries”.
3.      Advance increment for “Computerisation” as extended to all staff in the banking industry as per Bipartite settlement on 29th October,1993.
4.      Computer Allowance(Special Pay) disallowed by 3(three) sponsor banks e.g. SBI and its associates, Central Bank of India, United Bank of India.
5.      Deputation allowance-fully denied.
6.      Need Academic Transfer Allowance-partly denied.
7.      Reimbursement of Hospitalisation expenses- not allowed by SBI for its sponsored RRBs after 8th Bipartite settlement.
8.      Transport Allowance-Fully denied
9.      Leased House accommodation facility-fully denied(inspite of direction of A.P. High Court)
10.Reimbursement of Fuel expenses.
11.Festival advance-not at par.
12.Incidental expenditure on transfer-not at par.
13.Special Leave to Union leaders.
14.Negotiation  Status.
15.Representation of Workmen and Officers in the Board of Management
 
 
  
  Updated on 28th April 2008 by TOM CHETTRY  
Facebook 'Like' Button
 
THIS PAGE IS UNDER MAINTENANCE This website was created for free with Own-Free-Website.com. Would you also like to have your own website?
Sign up for free