Andhra Pradesh Regional Rural ... vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2773 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                    AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


        WRIT PETITION Nos.4819 and 6463 of 2003

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.P.No.4819 of 2003.


       None appears for the petitioners in W.P.No.6463 of

2003.


       Mr. Mujeeb Kumar Sadasivuni and Ms. V.Uma Devi

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioners in these writ petitions are registered

associations of the officers and employees of the Regional

Rural Banks.

3. In these writ petitions, petitioners have assailed the

validity of the proceedings dated 30.01.2003 and circular

dated 04.04.2003 by which the officers and employees of

the Regional Rural Banks have been deprived of the benefit

of computer increment. The petitioners seek a direction to

the banks that they are entitled to the computer increment

at par with the employees of the State Bank of Hyderabad.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length.

5. The issue involved in these writ petitions is no longer

res integra. The Karnataka High Court in All India

Regional Rural Bank Employees Association v. Union of

India, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking

Division) (W.P.No.20034 of 2003, dated 22.03.2011) held

as under:

Insofar as the claim for computer increment is concerned, the objection by the respondents to the same on the ground that in terms of a Circular of the year 1993, since the NABARD was of the view that a computer programme in RRBs is planned for 50% of its branches and that infrastructure available in all the branches is poor and inadequate cannot be a ground for denial of the same. The respondent-bank has not indicated the reason why it has not extended this increment even after the admitted circumstance that there is full computerization of the bank since May 2007 and that it has extended the benefit of computer allowance while denying the computer increment from

the date. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for receiving the benefit of computer increment which was provided to the employees of the sponsor banks.

6. The aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court

has become final and was taken note of by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gramin Bank

Pensioners Samiti (SLP (C) No.39288 of 2012 with W.P.(C)

No.210 of 2013 and T.C.(C) No.38 of 2015, dated

25.04.2018). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the

Union of India to implement the judgment in respect of the

Regional Rural Banks within a stipulated time limit. The

relevant extract of the order passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reads as under:

SLP(C) No.39288/2012 Applications for impleadment are allowed. The Union of India is before this court, aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 23.08.2012 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.2021/2011. The Division Bench has declined to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge dated 15.09.2011.

Be that as it may, it is seen from the judgments of the High Court of both Single and Division Benches that the same is passed following the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 22.03.2011 and the appeal

filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2011 before the Division Bench has been dismissed. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) that the dismissal was set aside and the same was restored on 07.09.2012 and thereafter the same was dismissed again for non-prosecution on 13.01.2014. Thus, the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka has become final as against the appellant/Union of India. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has only followed that judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which has otherwise become final.

In that view of the matter, SLP(C) No.39288/2012 is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.210/2013 & T.C.(C) No.38/2015 In view of the order passed in SLP(C) No.39822/2012, no separate orders are required to be passed in W.P.(C) No.210/2013 and T.C.(C) No.38/2015. They are, accordingly, disposed of with directions to the Union of India to implement the judgment in respect of all the regional rural banks expeditiously and at any rate within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

7. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners who are

associations of the Regional Rural Banks are entitled to the

similar benefit.

8. The impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2003 and

circular dated 04.04.2003 insofar it pertains to the

petitioners are hereby quashed. The respondents are

directed to accord the benefit of the computer increment to

the petitioners from the date from which their banks were

fully computerised.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

27.09.2023 vs