Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
DURGA NARAYAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, DENA BANK
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1995
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (1) 346 JT 1995 (1) 633
1995 SCALE (1)306
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
1. The Government of India, by a reso-
634
lution dated July 19,1973 appointed a committee consisting
of five members to standardise pay scale, allowances and
perquisites of the Officers in the 14 Nationalised Banks.
The committee came to be popularly referred as the ’Pillai
Committee’ named after its Chairman. It submitted its
report in May 1974. The Government appointed a Study Group
of Bankers in September 1976 to make suggestions for the
implementation of the report. The Committee suggested
certain modifications in the method of implementation and
submitted its further report in February 1977; and the
Government adopted the report as modified by the Group of
Bankers.
2. The question of implementation of the report as
adopted by the Government was discussed by the Indian Bank’s
Association with various representatives of all the
Confederations of Banking Officers Organisation, and the
Secretary of this Association addressed a private and confi-
dential letter to Chief Executives of various Banks
including Dena Bank on March 15, 1978 &at the Government has
desired to bring Pillai Committee’s recommendations in force
latest with effect by May 1978. The Chief Executives were,
therefore, advised to take steps to introduce the new scales
of pay and allowances as per the Committee’s report and to
make appropriate fitment in the emoluments of the existing
officers with effect from 1st May, 1978, or even earlier if
so desired, after discussion with the organisations
representing the Officers. This letter further informed the
Chief Executives about the desire of the Government that all
new appointments on or after 1st May, 1978 should be on the
terms and conditions contained in the Pillai Committee
report.
3. The aforesaid communication was followed by a secret
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
letter from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) dated
March 28, 1978, mentioning about the concern of the Govern-
ment about the delay in the implementation of the
recommendations of the Pillai Committee. In view of this,
the Banks were advised by the Joint Secretary that if there
is going to be delay in the total implementation of the
recommendations, immediate steps should be taken to bring
the new pay scales and allowances applicable to all new
recruits and new promotees from clerks to Officers cadre,
pending fitment of the existing officers in the new scales.
This letter contains some other advice also.
4. It is in the aforesaid background that the Dena Bank
(hereinafter the Bank) offered to appoint the appellant,
pursuant to his application , in the Bank as Economic
Officer in the pay scale 1 as laid down by the Pillai
Committee, which is Rs.700-1800, with other allowances, per-
quisites and benefits as per the Pillai Committee
recommendations. This offer is dated 26th May 1978 and
states that the present emoluments would be as under:-
Basic Pay Rs.700.00
Dearness Allowance Rs.311.00
----------
Rs. 1011.00
5. The appellant joined the Bank accordingly and after
about 10 years of his service approached the Madhya Pradesh
High Court with the grievance that he had been denied some
increments in "Scale C" meant for Officers. He also claimed
for the first time about his fitment in the new pay scale
a.,; recommended by the Pillai Committee for "Scale C"
Officers
635
who were categorised as junior Management Grade Scale
1’Officers by the Committee. The High Court dismissed the
writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. There is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to
the benefit conferred by the report in question. Question
is whether by fixing his basic pay at Rs. 700/- at the time
of his appointment itself, the benefit has been made
available to him or not. The contention of the appellant is
that though the basic pay meant for Junior Management Grade
Scale 1 Officer as recommended by Pillai Committee man made
available to him, the fitment of which mention has been made
in Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979
(hereinafter the Regulation) has not been; and it is this
claim of his which he is pursuing. The case of the Bank on
the other hand is that the appellant is not entitled to any
fitment of which mention has been made in para 8 of the
Regulation inasmuch as question of fitment can arise only
for the existing Officers and not for new appointees like
the appellant. The further case of the Bank is that
whatever was made available by the Pillai Committee’s report
to incumbent like the appellant had been given while
offering appointment to him, as has been clearly stated in
the offer of appointment by which the appellant was made
aware of the recommendations which he had read and noted as
endorsed by him in the offer of appointment. To this the
reply of the appellant is that if anything further is due to
him, same may not be denied on the slippery ground of
estoppel, which was also one of the reasons which had
prevailed with the High Court in dismissing the writ
petition.
7. There can be no denial on the facts as noted above that
though Pillai Committee’s recommendations were formally made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
effective from 1st July, 1979, the same had come to be
implemented with effect from 1st May 1978; and it is because
of this, that though the appellant’s offer of appointment is
dated 26th May, 1978 his basic pay was stated as Rs.700/-,
though in the advertisement, which was published on 25/26
August, 1977 pursuant to which appellant had applied, emolu-
ments to be given were said to range from Rs. 325 to Rs.
925/-. So the only question left for our consideration, as
already indicated, is whether anything further is due to the
appellant because of what has been stated in para 8 of the
Regulation relating to fitment.
8. According to us, the appellant is not entitled to any
amount on this score for the following reasons:-
(1) The question of fitment can really arise only qua those
officers who were in the old scale of pay and which came to
be revised pursuant to Pillai Committee’s Report, and not
qua those who had already been given new pay scale, as was
the appellant.
(2) Para 7 of the Regulation which deals with
categorisation shows that Scale ’C’ post was placed in
Junior Management Grade Scale 1. The appellant having been
put in the pay scale of Rs.700-1800, which as per the Report
was meant for Junior Management Grade Scale 1, there is
sufficient force in the contention advanced on behalf of the
Bank in the written submissions field on 11. 1.95, that the
appellant was not holding the post in Scale ’C’ on 1.7.79;
and insofar as he is concerned, this post has already been
equated
636
with Junior Management Grade Scale 1 at the time of his
appointment.
(3) The contention of the appellant as advanced in "Short
Note of Argument" submitted on 10. 1.95 that he was entitled
not only to the pay scale laid down by the Pillai Committee
Report but benefits also (which word has been emphasised)
has no cutting edge inasmuch as perusal of the Report shows
that apart from the matter relating to the pay scale it
dealt with "Amenities, Facilities and Benefits in Kind"
which formed subject matter of Chapter 7 of the Report. So,
the claim of fitment cannot be sustained on the basis of
what was recommended on the score of benefits in kind.
(4) The decision of this Court in Shri Devenadra Management
Trainees v. Punjab National Bank, JT 1993 (6) SC 537, which
has been referred in the aforesaid note of the appellant in
support of his submission, does not really advance his case,
because, as rightly mentioned in the written submissions on
behalf of the Bank, that case was different on facts.
Therein the employees were not initially appointed in the
regular pay scale as recommended by the Pillai Committee
Report but were given fixed emoluments of Rs.700/-. It is
because of this that they were ordered to be given the
benefit of the Pillai Committee Report. Facts here are
quite different.
9. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit
in the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to
any higher emolument on the score of ’fitment’. But then
the offer of appointment which was given to the appellant
shows that while fixing his emoluments, Dearness Allowance
(DA) was mentioned as Rs.311.50. We, however, find that DA,
as per Chart 1 given in the booklet titled "Pay Scales,
Allowances and Perquisites of Officers in the Nationalised
Banks" issued by All India Confederation of Bank Officer’s
Organisations (Maharashtra State Unit), of those officers
whose basic pay is Rs.700 is required to be Rs,450. If this
was so as per the recommendations of the Pillai Committee,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
the DA of the appellant would be required to be raised to
Rs.450. The Bank would verify this and do the needful within
a period of two months from today by passing a speaking
order in this regard, a copy of which would be sent to the
appellant for his information.
10. Subject to the aforesaid observation relating to change
in DA, the appeal is dismissed. On the facts and circum-
stances of the case, we however, make no order as to costs.
639