Madras High Court
Union Bank Of India Officers ... vs Union Bank Of India on 28 June, 2022
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
and
M.P.No.2 of 2014
1.Union Bank of India Officers Association,
Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Chairman,
9 & 10, T.N.H.B.Complex,
180, Luz Church Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.A.P.Venkatasubramanian ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Union Bank of India,
Rep. by Deputy General Manager (HRM)
Office of the Assistant General Manager,
Personnel Admn. Division,
Central Office, Mumbai.
2.Chief Manager (P),
Union Bank of India,
Nodel Regional Office,
139, Broadway, Chennai – 600 108. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
from the 1st respondent relating to the Circular dated 10.04.2014 bearing
ref No. DP:PAD:149:2014 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary,
without jurisdiction, contrary to natural justice and consequently direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 25
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
respondents 1 and 2 to continue to grant the benefit of Leave Travel
Concession / Home Travel Concession as was granted prior to the
issuance of the impugned Circular.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy
For M/s. Row and Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For M/s. Gopalan & Co.
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the
Circular issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.04.2014, withdrawing the
Leave Travel Concession granted to the Officers of the Union Bank of
India to travel abroad.
2. The 1st writ petitioner is the Union Bank of India Officers
Association, Tamil Nadu and the 2nd writ petitioner is
A.P.Venkatasubramanian.
3. The 1st writ petitioner is affiliated to the All India Union Bank
Officers Federation. The Federation is affiliated to the All India
Nationalised Banks' Officers' Federation. 633 Officers are working in the
State of Tamil Nadu in the Union Bank of India and they are the members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis st
of the 1 respondent / The Union Bank of India Officers' Association.
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
4. The 1st respondent is a Nationalised Bank vide Banking Company
Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970. The petitioners state
that in view of the demands made by the Officers and Association to
extend the benefit of Leave Travel Concession to travel abroad, the
respondent / Bank on 31.12.1983 communicated its decision to extend the
benefit of Leave Travel Concession to travel abroad. Accordingly, the said
benefit to travel abroad by availing the Leave Travel Concession is being
enjoyed by the officers of the 1st respondent / The Union Bank of India.
However, surprisingly through the impugned order dated 10.04.2014, the
respondents have withdrawn the Foreign Travel Concession granted to the
Officers of the respondent / Bank. The said decision was taken based on
the Circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance and
also by the Indian Bank Association.
5. The petitioners state that the impugned communication is without
jurisdiction and the decision was taken unilaterally by the Bank and
therefore, in violation of the principles of the natural justice.
6. The petitioners state that the respondent / Bank is an independent
entity and the Board of Directors has not taken the decision independently
to discontinue the Leave Travel Concession / Home Travel Concession to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
travel abroad and therefore, the impugned Circular is unilateral and bad in
law. The petitioners are enjoying the benefit of Leave Travel Concession
to travel abroad for several years and therefore, it became a part of their
service condition. Thus, the 1st respondent cannot discontinue the same
without hearing the petitioners. It is contended that the 1st respondent /
Bank ought to have discussed the issue with the petitioners' Association,
which is a recognized Association before taking any such decision. Thus,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the
Leave Travel Concession was granted pursuant to Regulation 44 of the
Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. The benefit to
travel abroad has also been granted by the 1st respondent and the said
benefit is continuously being enjoyed by the Officers of the Union bank of
India for several years. While so, withdrawal of the said concession
unilaterally by the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural
justice and the petitioners were not even heard before passing the
impugned order.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by stating that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
the writ petition itself is not maintainable and further, the Regulation 44 of
the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979,
contemplates Leave Travel Concession / Home Travel Concession “to any
place in India by the shortest route.”
9. The Regulation do not contemplates the benefit of travel to
abroad. The travel to abroad granted by way of an additional facility,
which is a concession and do not have the Statutory force. Thus, such
withdrawal of such concession is a policy decision taken by the 1st
respondent / Bank, pursuant to the Circular issued by the Ministry of
Finance, Government of India and the Indian Bank Association based on
certain facts and circumstances. Therefore, the Bank need not consult the
Officers' Association, their right to travel as per Regulation 44 is not taken
away. Thus, they cannot be considered as aggrieved persons as far as the
additional facility to travel abroad is concerned.
10. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective
learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents to the lis on hand.
Let us now consider the proceedings of the 1st respondent, granting the
benefit of Leave Travel Concession and the additional benefit to travel
abroad. Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
Regulations, 1979 reads as under:
“44. Leave Travel Concession:
(1) During each block of four years, an Officer shall
be eligible for Leave Travel Concession for travel to his
home town once in each block of two years. Alternatively, he
may travel in one block of two years to his home town and
in the other block to any place in India by the shortest route.
On and from the effective date of this joint note dated
02.06.2005, the following provisions shall apply:-
(i) During each block of 4 years, an Officer shall be
eligible for Leave Travel concession for travel to his place
of domicile once in each block of two years. Alternatively,
he may travel in one block of two years to his place of
domicile and in another block of two years to any place in
India by the shortest route.
(ii) An officer, by exercising an option anytime during
a block of four years or two years, as the same may be,
surrender and encash his Leave Travel Concession (other
than travel to place of domicile) upon which he shall be
entitled to receive an amount equivalent to 75% of the
eligible fare for the class of travel by train to which he is
entitled up to a distance of 4500 kms. (one way) for officer
in JMGS scale I and MMGS Scale II and III and 5500kms
(one way) for officers in SMG scale IV and above. An officer
opting to encash his TC shall prefer the claim for himself /
herself and his / her family members only once during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
block / term in which such encashment is availed of. The
facility of encashment of privilege leave while availing of
Leave Fare Concession is also available while encashing
the facility of Leave Fare Concession.
(iii) The mode and class by which an officer may
avail of Leave Travel Concession shall be the same as the
officer is normally entitled to travel on transfer and other
terms and conditions subject to which the Leave Travel
Concession may be availed of by an officer, shall be decided
by the Board from time to time.
Provided that w.e.f. 1st May 2010, an officer in Junior
Management Grade Scale I while availing LTC will be
entitled to travel by air in the lowest fare economy class in
which case the reimbursement will be the actual fare or the
fare applicable to AC 1st Class fare by train for the distance
travelled whichever is less. The same rules shall apply when
an officer in Middle Management Grade Scale II and
Middle Management Grade Scale III while availing LTC
where the distance is less than 1000 kms.
(iv) On and from 01-06-1991 once in every 4 years
when an Officer avails of Leave Travel Concession, he may
be permitted to surrender and encash his privilege Leave
not exceeding one month at a time. Alternatively, he may
whilst travelling in one block of two years to his home town
and in other block to any place in India be permitted
encashment of Privilege Leave with a maximum of 15 days
in each block of 30 days in one block. For the purpose of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
leave encashment all the emoluments payable for the month
during which the availment of the Leave Travel concession
commences shall be admissible.
Provided that an Officer at his option shall be
permitted to encash one day's additional Privilege Leave for
donation to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund subject to his
giving a letter to the bank to that effect and authorizing the
Bank to remit the amount to the Fund.”
11. The above scheme of Leave Travel Concession, which is
conferred as a right through Regulation unambiguously stipulates that the
officers of the bank are eligible to travel any place in India by the shortest
route. The said rule has not been amended even today. The said rule is in
force all long and is taken into consideration even for reimbursing the
Leave Travel Concession benefits. Without amending the Regulation 44 to
avail the benefit of Leave Travel Concession, the respondent / Bank issued
an Office Memo dated 31.12.1983, granting the benefit to travel abroad.
Such benefit was granted by way of an Office Memo and based on the
representations of the Officers of the Bank. Therefore, there is no bipartite
agreement between the parties. Regulation 44 for grant of Leave Travel
Concession is also not amended and only by way of an Office Memo, the
Bank allowed the Officers to travel abroad and by having Leave Travel
Concession under Regulation 44.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
12. The Office Memo dated 31.12.1983 reads as under:
''OFFICE MEMO
Ref: DP:PC :1973/83 From:Department of Personnel
I.R.Section.
Attention : The Dy. General Manager Date: 31st December 1983.
1oth Pause, 1905
Subject: Union bank of India (Officers')
Service Regulations, 1979-
Leave Travel Concession.
-----------------
Employees in the award staff are permitted LTC in accordance
with the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. As regards the officer
staff there is no stipulation regarding the mileage and distance within
India, once in block of 4 years as provided under the Service
Regulations. Quite a number of officers desire to utilize LTC for
sight-seeing tours abroad. Since we have to permit LTC to officers
once in the block of 4 years, we may permit the officer employee to
utilize LTC either for travel in India or for visit abroad.
The maximum distance which an officer can travel within India
is 4,000 kms (one way). Hence the officer employee travelling out of
India on LTC, he may be reimbursed the eligible fare for distance
upto 4,000 kms (one way) or from the place of work to the last station
on the Indian border, which ever is. However, where an officer
employee does not actually touch the last station on the Indian border
and if the distance that he travels from the place of work to his
designation on LTC abroad i.e., more than 4,000 kms he be paid the
maximum fare ment ot 4,000 kms. However, if such distance is less
than 4,000 kms he be paid for such lesser kms.
Submitted for approval.
Sd/- Sd/-
Manager (Personnel) Manager (IR)
Upto 3000 K.M. to be permitteed
Sd/- Y.Karan
25.01.84''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
13. Reading of the Office Memo clarifies that the additional facility
was extended because quite a number of Officers desire to utilise Leave
Travel Concession for sightseeing tours abroad. Since the Bank permits
Leave Travel Concession once in the block of 4 years, the Officers may be
permitted to utilise Leave Travel Concession either for travel in India or
for visit abroad. It is a mere letter, wherein, the 1st respondent / Bank have
stated that the Officers may be directed to utilise Leave Travel Concession
to visit abroad. The said letter has not a Statutory back-up, it is a decision
taken by exercising the power of discretion of the management by
providing additional facility, which is otherwise not contemplated under
Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations,
1979.
14. In this backdrop, question arises:
(i) Whether the Office Memo issued by the respondents
confer any service right to the Officers of the Union Bank of
India through a bipartite agreement having Statutory force or
not?
(ii) Whether the impugned withdrawal of the additional
facility to travel abroad to the officers of the Bank resulted in
infringement of any right conferred under the Officers’
Regulations or in violation of any other agreement expressly
made between the parties or not?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
(iii) Whether certain additional concessions or facilities
provided by the employer to the employee to encourage them
or by considering their request or otherwise, shall be
construed as a service right or conditions of service and
whether the withdrawal without providing opportunity would
result in violation of principles of natural justice or not?
15. In the case of Director General of Foreign Trade and Others
Vs. Kanak Exports and Others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 226. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“101. We may state, at the outset, that the incentive
scheme in question, as promulgated by the Government, is in
the nature of concession or incentive which is a privilege of
the Central Government. It is for the Government to take the
decision to grant such a privilege or not. It is also trite law
that such exemptions, concessions or incentives can be
withdrawn any time. All these are matters which are in the
domain of policy decisions of the Government. When there is
withdrawal of such incentive and it is also shown that the
same was done in public interest, the Court would not tinker
with these policy decisions. There is so laid down by catena of
judgments of this Court and is now treated as established and
well grounded principle of law. In such circumstances, even
the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel cannot be ignored.
104. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the
Government has a right to amend, modify or even rescind a
particular Scheme. It is well settled that in complex economic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based
on experimentation or what one may call trial and error
method and therefore its validity cannot be tested on any rigid
prior considerations or on the application of any straight-
jacket formula . In Balco Employees Union (regd.) Vs.
Union of India and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 333, the Supreme
Court held that Laws, including executive action relating to
economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude
that laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech,
religion etc., that the legislature should be allowed some play
in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems
which do not admit of solution through any doctrine or
straitjacket formula and this is particularly true in case of
legislation dealing with economic matters, where having
regard to the nature of the problems greater latitude require
to be allowed to the legislature. The question, however, is as
to whether it can be done retrospectively, thereby taking away
some right that had accrued in favour of another person?”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the Government's withdrawal
of concessions in the above case.
16. In the case of H.L.Trehan and others Vs. Union of India and
Others reported in (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 76, wherein, the
Hon'ble Apex Court of India made the following observations:
“11............It is now a well established principle of law
that there can be no deprivation or curtailment of any existing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis right, advantage or benefit enjoyed by a government servant
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
without complying with the rules of natural justice by giving the
government servant concerned an opportunity of being heard.
Any arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power prejudicially
affecting the existing conditions of service of a government
servant will offend against the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Admittedly, the employees of CORIL were not given
an opportunity of hearing or representing their case before the
impugned circular was issued by the Board of Directors. The
impugned circular cannot, therefore, be sustained as it offends
against the rules of natural justice.”
With reference to the judgment in the case of H.L.Trehan and others
(cited supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the general
principles regarding the existing right conferred on the employees and
advantage of the benefit enjoyed by the Government servants were taken
into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, in the
present case, a distinction is required with reference to the service
conditions, or rights of the employees and also the concessions and
facilities provided to such employees, which do not have statutory force in
the eye of law. Thus, the principles cannot be applied in respect of the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
17. Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative
Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an
absolute right to the employees. Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
(Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, contemplates Leave Travel
Concession and Leave Encashment only to “any place in India by the
shortest route”. Admittedly, the Regulation was not amended. By way of
an Administrative Instruction, the Leave Travel Concession was extended
beyond the domicile of India to travel abroad. Thus, such an
Administrative Instruction cannot have statutory force and it is an
additional facility extended without any statutory backup. The writ
petitioners have failed to establish that there is a bipartite agreement.
Contrarily, they made a submission that there was a discussion between
the office bearers of the association and the executives of the Union Bank
of India. Such discussions would not confer any statutory right, unless it is
reduced into an agreement or a settlement under the provisions of the Act
or Rules. Therefore, it is unambiguous that the officers of the Union Bank
of India are eligible to avail the benefit of Leave Travel Concession and
Leave Encashment in accordance with Regulation 44 of the Union Bank
of India (Officers') Service Regulations and any other additional benefit
granted beyond the scope of the Regulations cannot be claimed as an
absolute right. Even now, Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing
right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the
Administrative Instruction / Circular, granting an additional facility by
way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the
same.
18. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance based on the
letter addressed to Cabinet Secretary by the Chief Vigilance
Commissioner had taken a decision and issued a circular dated
30.04.2014. The said letter reads as under:
“F.No.14/04/2013-VIG
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Financial Services
..........
dated April 30th, 2014
To;
CMDs of PSBs/FIs/PSCIs
Chairman of IRDA/PFRDA/NABARD
Governor, RBI
Chief Vigilance Officer of PSBs / Fis / PSCIs / IRDA / RBI /
PFRDA / NABARD
Subject: Rules and Guidelines for Leave Travel
Concession/Leave Travel Allowance.
1. Chief Vigilance Commissioner in his letter dated 08.10.2013
addressed to Cabinet Secretary, with a copy endorsed to
Secretary, DFS has raised concern relating to irregularities
observed in the leave travel concession/leave travel allowance
(LTC/LTA) schemes prevalent in various public sector
organisations including PSBs and suggested a review of the rules
and guidelines for LTC/LTA in various organisations in the
public sector and instruct the said organisations to take strict
departmental action against the erring officials in specific cases
of violation.
2. Pursuant to the above direction of CVC, the matter was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
examined in this Department and it was decided that
PSBs/PSICs/FIs/NABARD/RBI/IRDA/PFRDA may be advised to
formulate LTC/LTA schemes based on the principles of the GOI
Scheme.
3. The LTC/LIA scheme in particular should cover following:
a) travel to foreign destinations, including travel via
foreign destinations while availing LTC facility may not be
allowed.
b) reimbursement of fare should be based on actual
expenditure which in turn should not be beyond the entitled class
of travel:
c) In case the officer travels in a class lower than his
entitled class then his entitlement would be limited to the class of
travel. If part of the journey is through a lower class then the
entitlement would be proportionately reduced.
4. The conditions in para 3 above may be implemented with
immediate effect.
5. The LTC/LTA scheme duly revised on above lines may be
issued with prior approval of the respective Boards in a time
bound manner.
(Mritunjay Singh)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.”
19. When the Government of India specifically passed a
memorandum that the Leave Travel Concessions to the officers of the
Public Sector Undertakings and others to be restricted on par with the
Government of India scheme, then there is a context and meaning with
reference to certain foreign affairs and therefore, there is no infirmity in
respect of the order impugned passed by the respondents in cancelling the
concession extended to travel abroad under Leave Travel Concession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
facility. Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service
Regulations, 1979, regarding Leave Travel Concession and Leave
Encashment are comprehensive and provides the procedures, definitions
etc., The said Regulation alone would have the Statutory enforceability.
20. When the concession to travel abroad has been permitted
without entering into bipartite agreement or through a Statute, question of
granting an opportunity to the officers does not arise. Such an additional
facility to travel abroad is a policy decision taken by the respondent /
Management and such a policy has been withdrawn, taking note of the
memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance and
also based on the decision taken by the Indian Bank Association. Thus, the
decision taken without providing an opportunity to the petitioners would
not constitute violation of principles of natural justice nor their service
rights are infringed. It is not as if every such policy is to be granted or
withdrawn only after providing an opportunity to the employees. The
service rights and the conditions of service alone is to be considered as an
absolute right and the withdrawal of such service rights or the service
conditions cannot be done unilaterally by the employer without affording
opportunity to the employees. In the case on hand, the petitioners could
not able to establish that the additional facility to travel abroad under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
Leave Travel Concession is a service right or condition of service. Thus,
the withdrawal would not infringe the rights of the employees nor caused
any prejudice and thus, this Court do not find any perversity in respect of
the decision taken for withdrawal of the additional concession granted to
the officers of Union Bank of India to travel abroad under Leave Travel
Concession scheme. However, it is made clear that the officers are entitled
to the Leave Travel Concession and Leave Encashment as contemplated
under Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service
Regulations, 1979.
21. Regarding the ground raised on behalf of the petitioners that the
principles of natural justice has been violated, this Court is of the
considered opinion that natural justice principles cannot be adopted in a
straitjacket formula. The principles are to be applied with reference to the
facts and circumstances of the particular case. If no prejudice is caused to
the person raising the ground of principles of natural justice, then the
show cause notice or an opportunity became a futile exercise and non-
issuance of show cause notice would not be a ground to vitiate the entire
proceedings. Therefore, there cannot be any mechanical approach by the
Courts, while applying the principles of natural justice for the purpose of
setting aside the decisions of the authorities. Recently, the Three Judges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P
Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others in Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2020
dated 16.10.2020, considered the scope of application of principles of
natural justice with reference to the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and laid down the principles as under:
“38. Under the broad rubric of the Court not passing futile
orders as the case is based on “admitted” facts, being admitted by
reason of estoppel, acquiescence, non-challenge or non-denial, the
following judgments of this Court are all illustrations of a breach
of the audi alteram partem rule being established on the facts of
the case, but with no prejudice caused to the person alleging
breach of natural justice, as the case was one on admitted facts:
(i) Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. v. Sakattar Singh (2001)
1 SCC 214 (see paragraphs 1, 4 and 5);
(ii) Karnataka SRTC and Anr. v. S.G. Kotturappa and Anr.
(2005) 3 SCC 409 (see paragraph 24);
(iii) Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and
Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 337 (see paragraphs 21, 22 and 26);
(iv) Mohd. Sartaj and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006)
2 SCC 315 (see paragraph 18);
(v) Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and
Anr. (2006) 8 SCC 647 (see paragraphs 17 and 19);
(vi) Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. (2007)
4 SCC 54 (see paragraphs 26 to 32);
(vii) State of Manipur and Ors. v. Y. Token Singh and Ors.
(2007) 5 SCC 65 (see paragraphs 21 and 22);
(viii) Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
Educational Institutions v. Pindiga Sridhar and Ors. (2007) 13
SCC 352 (see paragraph 7)
(ix) Peethani Suryanarayana and Anr. v. Repaka Venkata
Ramana Kishore and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 308 (see paragraph 18);
(x) Municipal Committee, Hoshiapur v. Punjab State
Electricity Board and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 216 (see paragraphs 31
to 36, and paragraphs 44 and 45);
(xi) Union of India and Anr. v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018)
15 SCC 463 (see paragraph 20).
39. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:
(1)Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the
judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach
of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead
to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.
(2)Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law
embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se
does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again,
prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a
mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in
individual interest, but also in public interest.
(3)No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the
breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the
case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial
or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts
that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to
the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.
(4)In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does
not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in
fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the
Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the
authority who denies natural justice to a person.
(5)The “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere
apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It
should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite
inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-
observance of natural justice.”
22. The principles laid down by the Three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is to be followed as a precedent as the
principles regarding the application of the natural justice are enumerated.
Accordingly, the facts and circumstances of each case is to be considered
for application of natural justice principles and thus, the principles of
natural justice alone would not be a ground to quash the decisions of the
authorities in all cases in a routine manner, wherever, there is no notice or
opportunity has been provided to a person. The admitted facts between the
parties are also play a pivotal role in forming an opinion, whether not
providing an opportunity vitiates the entire proceedings or caused any
prejudice.
23. The Government of India Memorandum dated 30.04.2014 states
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
that the Public Sector Banks have to adopt the LTC scheme of the
Government of India. The letter itself reveals that there are certain reasons
and implications in respect of allowing such Bank officials to travel
abroad under the LTC scheme as it relates to External Affairs of the
country. The said Circular of the Government of India was implemented
by the Indian Bank Association and based on the said decision, the Union
Bank of India also issued the Circular, withdrawing the facility to the
officers to travel abroad. Thus, the Government of India policy regarding
the Leave Travel Concession to the officers of the Public Sector Banks
also to be followed in the interest of public. The instructions earlier issued
to facilitate the officers of the Bank to get reimbursement for foreign
travel, which is not in consonance with Regulation 44 of the Union Bank
of India Officers Service Regulations, 1979 cannot be therefore, construed
as an absolute right conferred on the officers of the Union Bank of India
nor there is a bipartite agreement or settlement exists between the parties.
Thus, there is no infringement of service rights or violation of service
conditions, as there is no withdrawal of benefit conferred to the officers of
the Union Bank of India under Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India
Officers Service Regulations, 1979.
24. The concession and the facility extended to get reimbursement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
of the foreign travel expenses, was given by way of an additional facility
through a letter and such letter was cancelled and the facility was
withdrawn pursuant to the orders of the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance and the Circular issued by the Indian Bank Association. The
policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance is to be followed
in the interest of public by all the Public Sector Banks, which was adopted
by the Indian Bank Association.
25. This being the factum established, there is no further scope for
any discussion or negotiation with the officers of the Union Bank of India
as the withdrawal of such additional facility would not infringe the service
rights or result in violation of service conditions of the officers of the
Union Bank of India. Providing an opportunity in such circumstances is a
futile exercise and furthermore, the officers of the Bank are not prejudiced
nor their service rights are violated. The executive actions regarding the
foreign affairs should be viewed with greater latitude and the decision
being taken by the Union Bank of India is pursuant to the Government of
India policy, which was adopted by Indian Bank Association.
26. Thus, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
respect of the decision taken by the Union Bank of India based on the
policy decision of the Government of India, which was adopted by the
Indian Bank Association.
27. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.06.2022
Jeni
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To
1.The Deputy General Manager (HRM)
Union Bank of India,
Office of the Assistant General Manager,
Personnel Admn. Division,
Central Office, Mumbai.
2.The Chief Manager (P),
Union Bank of India,
Nodel Regional Office,
139, Broadway, Chennai – 600 108.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.14688 of 2014
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
