Madras High Court
V.Venugopal Rao Venapally vs The Managing Director on 23 September, 2022
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.6392, 15089, 15090 of 2017 & 4843 of 2022
W.P.No.5969 of 2017
1.V.Venugopal Rao Venapally
2.Prasant Kumar Mishra
3.C.Chandrasekaran
4.M.Damodharam Maduguri
5.S.Chenadrasekaran
6.M.Raja Kumaran
7.P.Mariappan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
State Bank of India (Associate of the State Bank of India)
Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad – 500 001.
2.The General Manager (H.R.)
State Bank of India (Associate of the State Bank of India)
Head Office, Gundfoundry, Hyderabad – 500 001.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India (Associate of the State Bank of India)
Zonal Office, 4, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4.The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,(Associate of the State Bank of India)
Regional Office, 4, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 25
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
(Respondents 1 to 4 cause title amended as per order
dated 09.11.2017 in W.M.P.No.29841/2017
in W.P.No.5969/2017)
5.The Finance Secretary,
Room No.129A, North Block,
32, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi – 110 023.
6.The Defense Secretary,
Ex-Service Men Welfare (ESW)
5-A, South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011.
7.The Deputy Chief Executive,
Indian Bank's Association,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Centre -1, 6th Floor,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
(R5 to R7 impleaded as per order dated 13.09.2017
in W.M.P.No.24662/2017 in W.P.No.5969/2017) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling upon the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued the Impugned Circular
No:PER/2015-16/114 dated on 02.03.2016 to the all the branches of
respondents bank, which is stating that the "ex- servicemen employees
who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and re - employed in the bank in clerical
and subordinate cadre are NOT ELIGIBLE for re-fixation of basic pay in
the bank based on the revised pay structure in terms of 6th Pay
Commission" and quash the same as illegal and consider the
representation made by the second and first petitioner respectively on
24.07.2015 & 26.08.2015 to pay the equal remuneration between the
same cadre of single window operators and armed guards for work of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
similar nature from the date of appointment.
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.C.Mohan
For M/s.King & Partridge
For R6 : Mr.N.Rajan
Central Government Standing Counsel
For R5 & R7 : No appearance
W.P.No.13905 of 2017
1.C.Thiyagarajan
2.P.Dasarathan
3.R.Philip
4.J.Antony Amala Chandran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
Central Zone, BKG Complex, “A” Block,
P.B.No:9525, Avenue Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
2.The General Manager (H.R.)
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
Central Zone, BKG Complex, “A” Block,
P.B.No:9525, Avenue Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
Zonal Office, N:231, N.S.C.Bose Road,
George Town, Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Assistant General Manager,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
Regional Office – II, 1st Floor, No:41, 8th Street,
Tatabad Branch, Coimbatore – 641 012.
5.The Finance Secretary,
Room No.129A, North Block,
32, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi – 110 023.
6.The Defense Secretary,
Ex-Service Men Welfare (ESW)
5-A, South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011.
7.The Deputy Chief Executive,
Indian Bank's Association,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Centre -1, 6th Floor,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
(R5 to R7 impleaded as per order dated 13.09.2017
in W.M.P.No.24663/2017 in W.P.No.13905/2017) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling upon the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued the Impugned order Staff
Circular No.74 /2015-16 dated on 07.12.2015 to all the branches of
respondents bank, which is stating that clause (03)“As such, notionally
arrived pay as per DoPT Office Memorandum dated 05.04.2010 cannot be
protected for pay fixation of Ex- Servicemen” and quash the same as
illegal and consider the representation made by the petitioners on the
following dated 16.04.2015, 17.10.2016 & 01.12.2016 to pay the equal
remuneration between the same cadre of ARMED GUARDS for work of
similar nature from the date of appointment and pass such other orders as
this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.Leban
For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
For R6 : Mr.N.Rajan
Central Government Standing Counsel
For R5 & R7 : No appearance
W.P.No.18469 of 2017
1.A.Ramanathan
2.R.Ramesh
3.S.Aron
4.S.Rozario
5.Z.Syed Junaith Ahamed
6.V.Ramesh Kumar
7.N.Mahendiran
8.G.Muruganantham
9.K.Ramachandran
10.A.Jaganatha Raja
11.C.R.Soundararajan
12.V.Kubendran
13.G.Muthuselvan
14.S.Sekar
15.S.Sudalai Veerapandian
16.D.Aron
17.A.Manoharan
18.M.K.Tamil Selvan
19.S.Govindaraju
20.V.Ezhumalai
21.K.Ravichandran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Finance Secretary,
Room No.129A, North Block,
32, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi – 110 023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Defense Secretary,
Ex-Service Men Welfare (ESW)
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
5-A, South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011.
3.The Deputy Chief Executive,
Indian Bank's Association,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Centre -1, 6th Floor,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
4.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
5.The General Manager (HRM)
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling upon the
proceedings of the 3rd respondent issued the Impugned Circular
No.HR&IR/CIR/ 2013-14/589/ 8764 dated on 30.01.2014 to the all the
Chief Executives of Public Sector Banks, which is stating that in guide
line “Clause 2.1 (ii) In case of officers who retired before 01.01.2006 and
also those who retired after 01.01.2006 in the pre- revised pay scales
without opting for the revised pay scales promulgated on after 01.01.2006,
the pay will be including stagnation increment and Rank Pay Plus
Dearness Pay and Dearness Allowance drawn at the time of retirement”
and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to issue fresh
circular with include the Ex-Service men who retired before 01.01.2006
and re-employed in Banks on or after 01.01.2006 to avoid disparity in pay
fixation across Public Sector Banks. Further, direct the respondents to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the equal pay for equal work between the same cadres of armed guards
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
with similar nature of work from the date of appointment under the Equal
Remuneration Act – 1976.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar
For R2 : Mr.N.Rajan
Central Government Standing Counsel
For R4 & R5 : Mrs.Ritachandrasekhar
For M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
For R1 : No appearance
For R3 : Not Ready in notice
COMMON ORDER
The issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same.
Hence, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The relief sought for in W.P.No.5969 of 2017 is to call for the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent, who issued the Impugned Circular
No:PER/2015-16/114 dated 02.03.2016 to the all the branches of
respondents bank, which is stating that the "ex- servicemen employees
who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and re - employed in the bank in clerical
and subordinate cadre are NOT ELIGIBLE for re-fixation of basic pay in
the bank based on the revised pay structure in terms of 6th Pay
Commission" and quash the same and to consider the representation made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the second and first petitioner respectively on 24.07.2015 &
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
26.08.2015 to pay the equal remuneration between the same cadre of
single window operators and Armed Guards for work of similar nature
from the date of appointment.
2.1. In respect of W.P.No.13905 of 2017, the relief sought for is to
call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, who issued the Impugned
order Staff Circular No.74/2015-16 dated 07.12.2015 to all the branches of
respondents bank, which is stating that clause (03)“As such, notionally
arrived pay as per DoPT Office Memorandum dated 05.04.2010 cannot be
protected for pay fixation of Ex- Servicemen” and quash the same as
illegal and to consider the representation made by the petitioners on
16.04.2015, 17.10.2016 and 01.12.2016, to pay the equal remuneration
between the same cadre of ARMED GUARDS for work of similar nature
from the date of appointment.
2.2. In respect of W.P.No.18469 of 2017, the relief sought for is to
call for the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, who issued the Impugned
Circular No.HR&IR/CIR/2013-14/589/ 8764 dated 30.01.2014 to the all
the Chief Executives of Public Sector Banks, which is stating that in guide
line “Clause 2.1 (ii) In case of officers who retired before 01.01.2006 and
also those who retired after 01.01.2006 in the pre- revised pay scales
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
without opting for the revised pay scales promulgated on after 01.01.2006,
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
the pay will be including stagnation increment and Rank Pay Plus
Dearness Pay and Dearness Allowance drawn at the time of retirement”
and quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondents to issue fresh
circular with include the Ex-Service men, who retired before 01.01.2006
and re-employed in Banks on or after 01.01.2006 to avoid disparity in pay
fixation across Public Sector Banks. Further, to direct the respondents to
pay the equal pay for equal work between the same cadres of armed guards
with similar nature of work from the date of appointment under the Equal
Remuneration Act – 1976.
3. The petitioners are Ex-Servicemen and after their retirement from
Indian Military Services, submitted application for the post of Peon-cum-
Armed Guard with the respondent's Bank concerned through Ex-
Servicemen Employment Office. Pursuant to the Recruitment process, the
petitioners were appointed in the said post at various places across the
State of Tamil Nadu in the Middle of the year 2011 on different dates. The
writ petitioners are working within Chennai City Limits.
4. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that their pay was fixed
based on the 5th Central Pay Commission Recommendations and
accordingly, the petitioners are receiving the salary. The juniors, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
retired from Indian Military Services and appointed three years later are
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
now receiving higher scale of pay than that of the petitioners. In this
regard, the petitioners approached the respondents for stepping up of their
pay on par with their juniors as those reappointed Ex-Servicemen are also
similarly placed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the different
scale of pay fixed for the senior and juniors are arbitrary and result in
discrimination. Equal pay for equal work is to be adopted and the
petitioners and their juniors are performing the similar duties and
responsibilities attached to the post of Peon-cum-Armed Guard. While so,
the petitioners cannot be discriminated and therefore, their pay is to be
stepped up on par with their juniors.
6. The respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents objected the same by stating that admittedly, the petitioners
were Ex-Servicemen, reappointed as Peon-cum-Armed Guard in
Nationalized Banks. Their pay was fixed in accordance with the Circular
issued by the Indian Bank's Association and the Indian Bank's Association
adopted the pay as directed by the Government of India. At the outset, the
Indian Bank's Association are bound by the office memorandum issued by
the Government of India. In the present case, the decision of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government of India is not under challenge and therefore, the writ
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
petitions are to be rejected.
7. It is further contended that the Indian Bank's Association
followed the fixation approved by the Government of India uniformly to
all the Nationalized Banks and in the absence of challenging the
Government of India office memorandum, the Circular issued by the
Indian Bank's Association cannot be held invalid.
8. Beyond the ground raised, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the stepping up of pay is to be considered only if the claimant proves
that he is similarly placed on par with the other employees. In the present
case, no doubt, the juniors are also Ex-Servicemen, retired from Indian
Military Services. However, those juniors were appointed after 3 or 4
years from the date of appointment of the writ petitioners and by that time,
next Pay Commission came into force. Thus, the petitioners do not
belonged to the class of Ex-Servicemen, who were re-appointed after the
implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. If at all, the juniors
were appointed along with the petitioners, when the 5th Central Pay
Commission was in force, then alone, the stepping up of pay would arise,
but not otherwise. In the present case, the petitioners were admittedly
reappointed, when the 5th Central Pay Commission was in force and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
juniors, who all are getting more pay, were appointed after implementation
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
of the 6th Central Pay Commission and therefore, the petitioners cannot
compare themselves with the other Ex-Servicemen, who were appointed
after implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission.
9. Thus, the petitioners and the Ex-Servicemen appointed at later
point of time, cannot be treated as homogeneous class for the purpose of
getting stepping up of pay.
10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issues raised in
the present writ petitions were already considered by this Court in the case
of V.Veerabhaskaran and 3 others Vs. State Bank of India in
W.P.No.30242 to 30245 of 2004 dated 15.12.2009 with reference to the
earlier Pay Commissions and the relief sought for is to step up the pay, the
Court made the following observations:
“20. The Court, having considered the anomaly as
pointed out by the petitioners, and on considering the
Ministry's Circular and the decisions of the Apex Court, is
not inclined to accept petitioners' plea. On facts, there is
no dispute that the Petitioners' basic pay drawn at the
Military service was on the basis of the pay fixed during
the Fourth Pay Commission. Petitioners after retirement
from Military service applied for re-employment in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent bank and they were issued with individual
appointment orders and their pay was fixed based on the
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi protecting their
basic pay at the time of entry into the bank. In this case,
the basic pay fixed by the bank is marginally higher than
the basic pay drawn in the military service. The petitioners
are not aggrieved at the time of entry into the respondent
bank service that there is an anomaly in the pay. The
dispute or the issue arose only when the juniors who had
the benefit of higher basic pay consequent to the
implementation of Fifth Pay Commission, entered into the
respondent bank service by way of reemployment after
retirement from the Military service. Till such time,
petitioners had no grievance that the Circular dated
28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking
Division), New Delhi is bad, arbitrary or unreasonable.
24. In the present case, the Circular dated
28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking
Division), New Delhi has not been challenged, nor is it
found to be at fault. Petitioners enjoyed the benefit of the
said Circular for basic pay fixation. Therefore, they
cannot turn around to state that the benefits that accrues to
the juniors should be extended to them as well. The
Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi is a protection to the
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
individual concerned at the entry level and that cannot be
used as a ground to refix the scale of pay or to step up the
pay at the time of entry of a new person on the same cadre.
26. On the contrary the two decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the respondent bank clearly justified
the stand taken by the respondent bank. In State of Andhra
Pradesh and others vs. - G.Sreenivasa Rao and others
reported in (1989)2 Supreme Court Cases 290 (cited
supra) the Apex Court in para 15 clearly held that equal
pay for equal work does not mean that all members of the
cadre must receive the same pay packet automatically.
Though the principle is accepted the Apex Court held that
if the pay fixation is done under the valid statutory rules,
executive instructions, it will apply. In this case, the pay
protection is given as in the present case by a Circular
dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs
(Banking Division), New Delhi, that cannot be said to be
arbitrary or unreasonable. The Apex Court was also
aware of the fact that in certain eventualities, a junior may
be drawing higher pay than senior staff affecting the
mandate of the equal pay. This is one such case.
27. The object of the circular is to ensure that
persons of Ex-Service Military do get the benefit of pay
fixation at entry into civil services and that has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
protected by the Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. This is
based on the objective that persons from Military service
on retirement, when they enter into civil service do not get
lesser pay than what they received in Military service. The
Petitioners cannot claim further benefits like stepping up of
pay in the absence of any specific rule or circular to that
effect. The anomaly as has been pointed out by the
petitioners was because of the implementation of the Fifth
Pay Commission. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that
the juniors drawing higher scale of pay is arbitrary is
rejected.
28. For all the above said reasons, I find no reason
to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the
respondent bank rejecting the petitioners' claim, bound
by the Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government
of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. The Writ Petitions
are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.”
11. The Delhi High Court also decided the issues with reference to
the Current Pay Commission on 17th May 2018 in W.P.(C).3310 of 2016
and the relevant paragraphs 5 & 6 are extracted hereunder:
“5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned letters
and the material on record, I find that in the matter of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
alleged discrimination in pay fixation of ex-servicemen re-
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
employed in public sector banks, the Ministry of Finance
vide Communication of 21st/22nd March, 2013 (Annexure-1
to counter affidavit filed by respondent-Indian Banks’
Association has called upon the Indian Banks’ Association
to frame uniform rules and regulations for fixation of pay of
ex-servicemen reemployed in public sector banks in
consonance with the Government of India policy in view of
principle of fairness. Thereafter, Guidelines for Pay
Fixation of Ex-Servicemen/Ex-ECOs/SSCOs, re-employed
in Public Sector Banks, on or after 01.01.2006 have been
issued by Indian Banks’ Association, which are appended to
the counter affidavit filed by respondent-Indian Banks’
Association. Although these Guidelines referred to DoPT’s
O.M. of 5th April, 2010 relied upon by petitioners’ counsel,
but it also refers to clarification given vide O.M. of 8th
November, 2010 on the subject in hand. As per these
Guidelines, exservicemen on joining the workman cadre in
matter of pay fixation would have the protection of pay plus
D.A. drawn by him at the time of release from Armed
Forces. It is amply clarified in these Guidelines that the
basic pay would include Stagnation Increment plus Rank
Pay plus Dearness Pay and Dearness Allowance drawn at
the time of retirement. These Guidelines are conspicuously
silent on the revised basic pay in terms of 6th Central Pay
Commission as claimed by petitioners.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
letters are in consonance with the aforesaid Guidelines.
Unless a challenge is laid to the aforesaid Guidelines,
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
impugned orders cannot be assailed as the O.M. of 5th
April, 2010 relied upon by petitioner’s counsel has been
duly considered in the said Guidelines. In view thereof,
liberty is granted to petitioners to assail the aforesaid
Guidelines to enable them to lay an effective challenge to
impugned letters.”
12. In yet another case of P.Anbalagan and Ors. Vs. State Bank of
India and Ors., in W.P.Nos.7760 to 7763 of 2006, this Court passed an
order on 25.06.2018 as under:
“19. Per contra, Thiru K.Sankaran, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent bank relied upon the case in
Union of India Vs. S.Soundara Rajan reported in (1980) 3
Supreme Court Cases 125 and submitted that in cases where
there is an anomaly in pay due to some peculiar
circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a breach of
Article 14 of the Constitution. He referred to para 4 of the
decision and it reads as follows:
"It is equally important to remember the well
established proposition that there cannot be a
case of discrimination merely because fortuitous
circumstances arising out of some peculiar
developments on situations create advantages or
disadvantages for one group or the other although
in the earlier stages they were, more or less, alike.
If one class has not been singled out for special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
treatment, the mere circumstances of advantages
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
accruing to one or the other cannot result in
breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. On this
basis we would agree with the reasoning of the
High Court of Madras and so declear the law
correctly."
He also relied upon the case in State of Andhra Pradesh and
others Vs.G.Sreenivasa Rao and others reported in (1982)2
Supreme Curt Cases 290 and stated that even though Article
39(d) of the Constitution of India provides equal pay for
equal owrk, it cannot be said that in all caes, the principle
will apply, because the fixation of pay for one or other person
may depend on various factors, like statutory rules, executive
instructions and other external factors as in the present case
the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission, which will
play a major role for deciding how the pay will be fixed at the
time of entry into banking service. Therefore, the petitioners
cannot claim that they should be given the benefit of stepping
up of pay on the principle of "equity pay for equal work".
There are certain factors and facts which are not in dispute
which disentitle the petitioners from pay parity from that of
their juniors as in the present case. The observation of the
Apex Court in the aforesaid decision will be squarely
applicaple to the facts of the present case. Paras 13 and 15
reads as follows:-
"13.The factual basis in all these appeals is
identical. The fact clearly show that in every case
the pay fixation of the junior was done under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Fundamental Rules and there were justifiable
reasons for fixing the junior at a higher pay than
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
his seniors in the cadre. It was not disputed that
the said pay fixation was in conformity with
fundamental Rules. Neither before us nor before
the Courts below the validity of Fundamental
Rules were challenged by any of the parties.
Without considering the scopeof these Rules and
without adverting to the reasons for fixing the
juniors at a higher pay, the High Court and the
Tribunal have in an omnibus manner come to the
conclusion that whenever and for whatever
reasons a junior is given higher pay the doctrine
of 'equal work' is violated and the seniors are
entitled to the same pay."
"15.Equal pay for equal work" does not mean that
all the members of a cadre must recieve the same
pay packet irrespective of their seniority, source
of recruitment, educational qualifications and
various other incidents of service. When a single
running pay scale is provided in a cadre the
constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal
work is satisfied. Ordinarliy grant of higher pay
to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary but if there
are justifiable grounds in doing so the seniors
cannot invoke the equality doctrine. To illustrate,
when pay fixation is done under valid statutory
rules/executive instructions, when persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recurited from different sources are given pay
protection, when promotee from lower cadre or a
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
transferee from another cadre is given pay
protection, when a senior is stopped at efficiency
bar, when advance increments are ggiven for
experience/passing a tes/acquiring higher
qualifications or his seniors without violating the
mandate of equal pay for equal work. The
differentia on these grounds would be based on
intelligible criteria which has raitional nexus with
the object sought to be achieved. We do not
therefore find any good ground to sustain the
judgments of the High Court/Tribunal."
13. Mr.A.Leban, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 in
W.P.No.13905 of 2017, brought to the notice of this Court that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others
Vs. Anil Prasad, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 665, considered the
similar issue and the following observations are made:
“22. Therefore, the pay fixation of the respondent in
the government service was absolutely in consonance with
para 8 of the CCS Order 1986. Para 8 does not provide that
on re-employment in Government Services a retired Armed
Force personnel would be entitled to his basic pay being
fixed at par with his last drawn pay. Holding so will violate
para 8 of the CCS Order. Under the circumstances the High
Court has committed a grave error in observing and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
holding that the retired Armed Forces personnel on re-
appointment in the government service would be entitled to
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
the last drawn pay as Armed Forces personnel. Therefore,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is unsustainable being contrary to para 8 of the CCS Order,
1986.”
14. In view of the above judgments, the issues are no more res
integra.
15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are
receiving the pay as applicable and fixed pursuant to the orders issued by
the Indian Bank Association. The Indian Bank Association issued Circular
based on the policy decision taken by the Government of India in its office
memorandum. The said office memorandum is not under challenge. Even
in case, where, the order is not challenged, the petitioners and their juniors
cannot be treated as homogeneous class for the purpose of considering the
stepping up of pay. Admittedly, the juniors referred by the petitioners were
appointed after three years and after the implementation of the 6th Central
Pay Commission and therefore, the scale of pay fixed for those juniors are
entirely different and there cannot be any comparison at all.
16. If at all, the respondents/Bank find that there are discrepancies in
the matter of fixation of pay and payment of salary between these two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
classes of people, they are at liberty to address the same to the
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
Government of India for redressal of grievances, if any exists to the writ
petitioners. As far as the fixation of pay is concerned, it was done in
accordance with the implementation of the respective Pay Commissions as
applicable to the employees working in the cadre of Peon-cum-Armed
Guard and this Court do not find any infirmity. Thus, the relief as such
sought for in the present writ petitions deserve no merit consideration.
17. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.09.2022
kak
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Managing Director,
State Bank of India (Associate of the State Bank of India)
Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad – 500 001.
2.The General Manager (H.R.)
State Bank of India (Associate of the State Bank of India)
Head Office, Gundfoundry, Hyderabad – 500 001.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India (Associate of the State Bank of India)
Zonal Office, 4, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,(Associate of the State Bank of India)
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
Regional Office, 4, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
5.The Finance Secretary,
Room No.129A, North Block,
32, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi – 110 023.
6.The Defense Secretary,
Ex-Service Men Welfare (ESW)
5-A, South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011.
7.The Deputy Chief Executive,
Indian Bank's Association,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Centre -1, 6th Floor,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
8.The Managing Director,
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
Central Zone, BKG Complex, “A” Block,
P.B.No:9525, Avenue Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
9.The General Manager (H.R.)
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
Central Zone, BKG Complex, “A” Block,
P.B.No:9525, Avenue Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
10.The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India (Previously known as
State Bank of Mysore)
Zonal Office, N:231, N.S.C.Bose Road,
George Town, Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India (Previously known as
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
State Bank of Mysore)
Regional Office – II, 1st Floor, No:41, 8th Street,
Tatabad Branch, Coimbatore – 641 012.
12.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
13.The General Manager (HRM)
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905 & 18469 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.Nos.5969, 13905
& 18469 of 2017
23.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
