Full Text
LPA 67/2009
STATE BANK OF PATIALA &ANR. Appellants
Through: Mr. I.S. Alagh with Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Dashrath Raghav, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra and Ms. Khushboo Arora, Advocates.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
20.0L2016
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the Court is of the opinion that the order dismissing the appeal has to be recalled. It is so directed. CM 12353/2015 is allowed. LPA 67/2009 is directed to be restored on the file of this Court.
LPA-67/2009 The appellant's grievance is with respect to the
ORDER
2016:DHC:8408-DB The writ petitioner has served in the Indian Army. He apparently applied for re-employment as Watchman with the appellant/bank; his application was accepted and he was appointed on
24.11.2003. The appellant's prevailing Circulars ensured pay protection for periods of service of its employees who had earlier functioned with the Central Government or its agencies or any other such public employment. Invoking those Circulars, the petitioner contended that contrary to the pay at which he was entitled to, i.e., ?6181.90, his pay was fixed at ?5460/-. The learned Single Judge noticed the contentions of the Bank that the pay fixation was in order because at the time the respondent entered its employment, the 7"^
Bipartite Agreement had ended and the 8"^ Bipartite Agreement as well as the pay scales agreed under, its regime had not yet come into force. The Single Judge rejected the contention in the following terms: -
"5. This Court is unable to agree with this submission. A perusal of the said letter wouldshow that itfixed the basicpay at Rs.5460/- per month and special allowance Rs.255/-. It is also not clear that how the amount of Rs.5460/- has been arrived at since the starting point should have been Rs.4020/- which was the last basic pay drawn by the petitioner while in the Army. From the chart showing the revised pay scales
(which is at Page 41 Annexure P-8) as against the pay scale of
Rs.4040/- the revised basic pay would be Rs.6045/-. The dearness allowance payable against this revised basic pay has been indicated in separate columns in the same chart. It is clear therefore that the respondent Bank was required tofix the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 6045/- and work out on that basis the dearness allowance and other amounts as on 24th November 2003, andfurther calculate thefuture increments on that basis. There is no scopefor any confusion on this score.
6. Accordingly, the letter dated 28th February 2006 and the subsequent letter dated 3rdMay 2008 issued by the respondent fixing the basic pay as Rs.5460/- per month are hereby quashed. It is directed that the basic monthly pay as on 24th November 2003 will standfixed at Rs.6045/- in terms of the Circular dated 18th March 1994 read with the chart of the revised basicpayat Annexure P-8 (page 41 ofthe paper book). The dearness allowance and special allowance will be worked out on that basis. All increments thereafter will be accordingly worked out. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from today. The consequential arrears be paid to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks thereafter together interest to 6% per annumfrom 24'^ November 2003 till the date of payment. Any amount recovered pursuant to the letter dated 28th February 2006 will be refunded to the petitioner within the same period. " It is contended by Mr. I.S. Alagh, learned counsel for the Bank, that the impugned order is in error since the essential pay protection was in fact afforded to the petitioner. He submitted that as against Rs.6006/- which was the last pay drawn by thepetitioner intheIndian Army, his revised pay (basic) would work out as Rs.5460/- as on 24.11.2003. The subsequent increments were thereafter at Rs.6045/on 01.11.2006 and Rs.6280/- on 01.11.2007. This Court is unpersuaded with the appellant's submissions. The Single Judge elaborately considered the Bank's contentions as well as its arguments that the refixation was in terms of the Circulars governing the issue. Learned counsel had argued before this Court that allowing the impugned order to stand would mean that other situated like the petitioner, i.e., in the grade of Watchman, would also lay claim to higher pay. We do not agree. The pay fixation orders which seek to protect public employment are an individual exercise, governed by the peculiarcircumstances of each case. We are of the opinion thatthere is no infinnitywith the order of the Single Judge; the appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. The arrears payable to the respondent shallbe paidto him within six weeks from today.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J JANUARY 20, 2016 IvikasI