State Bank Of India And Another vs Narendra Singh Dhapola

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The delay of 109 days, in preferring the appeal, is not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 2599 of 2015 dated 16.05.2018. The respondent-writ petitioners filed WPSS No. 2599 of 2015, seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to revise his pay-scale, and pay the next pay-scale on his promotion to the post of Junior Manager S-1; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to include the Senior Special Assistant Allowance (SSA) in the basic salary of the petitioner, on the date of his promotion, by fixing the pay by including the Senior Special Assistant Allowance; or, in the alternative, to place him in the next pay-scale; and not to reduce the emoluments which the petitioner was getting on the date of his promotion.

The respondent-writ petitioner's case, in short, is that he was initially appointed as an Assistant, and joined the service of the Bank on 09.12.2008. He was promoted as a Senior Special Assistant in June, 2009. He was promoted as an Assistant Manager Group S-1 on 15.09.2011 which is in the Junior Management Group Scale-I. It is his grievance that, despite his promotion, he was continued to be paid the pay applicable to the post of Senior Special Assistant; while the basic pay of the petitioner on the date of his promotion i.e. on 15.09.2011 was Rs.24,100/-, even after his promotion his pay-scale had not been changed and he was retained in the pay-scale of Rs.24,100/-; the Senior Special Assistant Allowance, being paid to him earlier, to the tune of Rs.3,500/-, had been withdrawn; subsequently, an order was passed on 02.11.2012 regarding fitment of the petitioner, and his basic pay was fixed; he was, however, not given the next pay-scale on promotion to Junior Management Group S-1; he moved a representation to the authorities, but to no avail; Mr. Sati and Mr. Dalakoti, who were appointed subsequent to him, were getting higher pay than him, though they were working as Senior Special Assistants; and, therefore, the respondent should be directed to revise his pay-scale. A counter affidavit was filed wherein it was stated that the petitioner was promoted on 15.09.2011 with a basic pay of Rs. 24,100/- payable to clerical staff; the arrears of promotion scale of Rs.26,500/- were duly paid to him after fitment; the petitioner's pay, after increments, w.e.f. February, 2013, as per the pay-slip of February, 2013, is shown to have risen to Rs.28,100/-; and hence the respondent had not put the petitioner to any loss.

In the order under appeal the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Manager on 15.09.2011 in the basic pay of Rs.45,950/-; it was the petitioner's grievance that persons junior to him, in the cadre of Senior Special Assistant, were getting a monthly salary of Rs. 75,589.68; and two others, who were working as Senior Assistants, were getting monthly salary of Rs.79,967.15 and Rs.76,000/-respectively. The learned Single Judge observed that a senior cannot be paid less pay than his juniors. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Gurcharan S. Grewal and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others: (2009) 3 SCC 94, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to step up the petitioner's pay higher than what his juniors were getting, within 10 weeks; and to pay the petitioner his arrears at the earliest within the said period. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, would submit that both Mr. Dalakoti and Mr. Sati were drawing higher salary only because of the inclusion of the Senior Special Assistant Allowance; at the time of his retirement, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 47,260/-, while Mr. Dalakoti and Mr. Sati were drawing a basic salary of Rs.39,400/- in the same grade; and it is only because certain special allowances had been paid to a particular class of employees, and which were not payable to officers, was there a difference in the emoluments. Learned counsel would draw our attention to ground 'E' of the special appeal which details the perquisites being given to clerical staff and officers such as petrol/diesel/Cleansing material/Casual labour/Newspaper and magazine/ Leased house accommodation/furniture, etc to contend that the pensionable components of the respondent-writ petitioner is Rs.48,570/- i.e. Rs.47,260/- basic + Rs.1310/-, while in the case of Mr. Sati and Mr. Mohan it was Rs.43,580/-and Rs.43,930/-.

In Gurcharan S. Grewal, on which the reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, the appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court questioning the order passed by the third respondent therein depriving him of the benefits of pay fixation. In appeal the Supreme Court held that, since the writ petition had been jointly filed on behalf of the appellants, whose interest were common, the prayer therein should not have been confined to the second appellant alone; and the High Court should have granted relief to the first appellant also, by directing that his pay also be stepped up to that of his juniors; a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than that of his juniors; even if there is a difference in the incremental benefits in the scales given to the appellants, and the scale given to the other employees, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue; and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of the first appellant is also stepped up to that of the other employees. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to extend the benefits of pay parity to the appellants with those of other employees.

While, in principle, a person who has put in longer service cannot be placed in a pay-scale or be paid benefits lower than their juniors, the contention of the appellant is that the respondent-writ petitioner was, in fact, paid a higher pay-scale than that of his juniors; and it is only because some special allowances were paid to Special Senior Assistants for doing overtime work, was there a difference in the overall emoluments paid to them.

While we have no quarrel with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that a senior cannot be paid lesser emoluments than his juniors, the question which necessitates examination is whether the respondent-writ petitioner has been singled out for adverse treatment, and has, in fact, been placed in a lower pay-scale than that of his juniors. As these are all matters for the appellant to consider, suffice it, in these circumstances, to modify the order of the learned Single Judge and, instead, direct the appellant-Bank to consider the respondent-writ petitioner's claim for being placed in a higher pay-scale than that of Mr. Dalakoti and Mr. Sati who were then working Special Senior Assistants in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan S. Grewal and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others: (2009) 3 SCC 94. The first appellant shall consider the respondent-writ petitioner's representation, and pass a reasoned order as to whether he was, in fact, entitled for his pay to be stepped up above the emoluments paid up to Mr. Dalakoti and Mr. Sati. The entire exercise, culminating in a reasoned order being passed and its being communicated to the respondent-writ petitioner, shall be completed within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case, the respondent-writ petitioner is held entitled to be extended higher emoluments, the same shall be paid to him within two months thereafter. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of prescribed charges, within one week.