Civil No 1134 of 1986
503 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Petitioner in person and Mohan Pandey for the Petitioners
K Madhava Reddy PP Rao RN Keshwani and HS Parihar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT J
The petitioners who are employees of respond ent No 1 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Develop ment hereinafter referred to as the Bank request for a direction to the Bank to give them fitment benefits which were given to their counter parts who were in the Bank s service prior to 1st February 1984
The admitted facts are that on 1st February 1984 petitioner No 1 was in the Bank s service as a Grade B  Officer land was promoted to Grade C  Officer scadre on March 7 1984
Petitioners 2 to 4 were not in the service of the Bank on 1st February 1984
Petitioner No 2 was appoint ed as a Grade C  Officer and Petitioners 3 and 4 were appointed as Grade B  Officers on various dates in March 1984
Petitioners 5 and 6 were in the Bank s service in Clerical Grade prior to 1st February 1984 and were appointed as Officers Grade A  after the said date
The first respondent Bank came into existence on July 12 1982 under an Act of Parliament viz National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act 1981
The initial staff of the Bank consisted of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India and of those recruited by the Reserve Bank of India exclusively to serve the erstwhile Agriculture Refi nance and Development Corporation which was taken over by the 1st respondent Bank
On February 24 1986 the Bank revised pay scales of all its Officers as a result of a settlement on the charter of demands submitted by the Bank s Officers  Association called NABARD Officers  Association
One of the demands of the Association was that the revision in the scales of their pay should be on the same basis as of the revision of the Officers in the Reserve Bank of India
It appears that the NABARD Officers Association had submit ted its charter of demands on November 30 1984 which was on the same lines as the charter of demands submitted by the Officers Association of the Reserve Bank of India to the Reserve Bank of India
On October 9 1985 the Reserve Bank of India revised the pay scales of its Officers wef 1st February 1984
As a result the 1st respondent Bank 504 also revised the pay scales of its Officers as stated earlier on February 24 1986 and to bring it on parity with the pay scales of the Reserve Bank of India gave effect to them also from 1st February 1984
Hence the importance of the date February 1 1984
Incidentally it may be stated that the revision of pay scales of the Officers in the entire Banking Industry was brought into effect from that date
The said date is thus not arbitrarily fixed by the respondent Bank for giving effect to the revision of pay scales
Since the revision of pay scales was given effect to from February 1 1984 it was necessary to fit the pay of the employees in service prior to February 1 1984 in the revised pay scales
Hence it was necessary to evolve some uniform formula for the fitments
The Reserve Bank of India had already prepared a refixation chart for the purpose
The respondent Bank also prepared its refixation chart for the purpose
This chart was also approved of by the NABARD Officers Association
The Association at the relevant time had 2284 members and except the present six petitioners nobody has made a grievance against the said chart
By the present Petition what is in effect challenged is the said refixation chart
The refixation chart which is an Annexure to the Petition gives effect to the terms of settlement between the Bank and its Officers which as stated above is a part of the general settlement in the Banking Industry
The said chart is made applicable to all the Officers who were in the service of the Bank holding either probationary permanent or temporary appointments and its benefit is given from 1st February 1984
The chart is no more than a device for fit ting the pay of the concerned Officers in the revised pay scales
Since the revised pay scales were given retrospec tive effect from 1st February 1984 it was necessary as a first step
to fit the pay in the old scales into the new scales on and from 1st February 1984
Such a fitment was necessary only in the case of those who were in service prior to February 1 1984
The entrants in service after that date would automatically be treated as being employed on the new scales from the date of their entry
There was therefore no need as indeed there could not be of making fitment adjustments in their case
There is further no dispute that the employees like the petitioners who were appointed either for the first time or promoted to the higher post after February 1 1984 were given all the benefits of the revised pay scales including the arrears in salary treating them as if they were appointed initially in the new scales
505 6
The refixation chart under challenge therefore contained a table of fitment of salaries of those employees who were in service prior to 1st February 1984
It is common knowledge that such fitment has to be made not by reducing the existing pay of the employees but fixing it into the nearest higher stage in the new scale
The table incorporat ed in the chart therefore contained fitment increments for the employees in service prior to 1st February 1984 herein after referred to as the old employees to avoid reduction and anomalies which would otherwise result
These increments were to merge in the new scales in course of time when the concerned employees reached the appropriate stage in the new scale
The increments given were not designed to grant higher emoluments to the old employees for all time to come
As has been pointed out by the respondent Bank there was a possibility of reduction in salary in some cases and of anomalies in other cases if a stage to stage adjustment was made in their salaries
Hence the table was so prepared that the fitments avoid the said consequences
The said fitment adjustments in the salaries of the old employees resulted in temporary increases in their pay packets although as stated earlier these fitment increments were to merge in future increments in the new scales
The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is directed precisely against these fitment increments given to the old employees
It is their case that these increments give undue benefit to the old employees as against them and since they occupy the same posts they are also entitled to the same fitment bene fits
That is the main relief which they have claimed in the petition by prayer a
The other reliefs are declaratory in nature and incidental to it
In support of their claim they have invoked the theory of Equal Pay for Equal Work and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by alleging discrimi nation between them and the old employees
They have also pressed certain decisions in support of their case
As will be obvious from what we have stated earlier the whole basis of the petitioners  case is misconceived
It proceeds on wrong presumptions and unwarranted premises
The present is not a case of discrimination between employees belonging to the same class or of granting different scales of pay to them
The present is a case of adjusting and fitting the salaries of the old employees belonging to the same class into the new scales of pay which are made avail able to both the new and the old employees
If in effecting such adjustments it becomes necessary to give fitment increments to the old employees it is to work out the equities and to do justice to them
Their past service in fact merits it
To deny them such adjustment is to treat them unequally by ignoring their past service and placing them on par with 506 the new entrants
For this purpose however limited it may be the old employees in the present case stand in a differ ent class from that of the new
The classification for the purpose is not only justified but necessary
The revision of pay scales is always effected with a particular date pro spectively or retrospectively
Whatever the date from which it is effected it necessarily involves fitment of the salaries of the existing employees in the new scales
A retrospective operation of the new scales therefore in volves for the same purpose a classification of employees into two categories viz those who were in service prior to the retrospective date and those who entered the service thereafter
If the benefit of the revised pay scales is to be conferred equitably on the old and the new employees the fitment of salaries is inevitable
To avoid it is to deny the equal benefit of the revised scales to the employees in service prior to the date from which the new scales come into effect
The service jurisprudence therefore makes it imperative to grant such fitments in the emoluments of the old employees
The fitmentadjustment in the new scales further as stated above has to be done by revising the salaries upward
This sometimes necessarily involves fitment in a higher stage in the pay scale than what the employee would be entitled to by a strict application of the stage to stage adjustment
The provision is also therefore some times made to treat the additional benefit as a personal pay till it gets merged in the next higher increment
This is a known practice of equitable adjustment of the old pay scales to the new pay scales
There is no other way of effecting the just and required adjustment
Thus it is not a case of giving undue benefits to one section of the employees be longing to the same class but is a case of conferring equitable benefits on the old employees and effecting a just adjustment between the salaries of the old and new employ ees as necessitated by the new pay scales
As stated above there is no dispute in the present case that the petitioners were either appointed to the higher post or they came in the service of the Bank for the first time after February 1 1984
Those who were appointed to the higher post after February 1 1984 and who were therefore necessarily in the lower post prior to that date get the benefit of fitment into the new scales in theft earlier lower post according to the very same refixation chart and received arrears of salary on account of such refixation
What they claim now is that notwithstanding the benefit of the refixation they got in theft lower post they should also get the said benefit in the higher post as if they were promoted to the higher post prior to February 1 1984
Similarly those of the petitioners who entered the Bank s service for the first time after February 1 1984 want the benefit of refixation as if they 507 were in service prior to February 1 1984
The claim of the petitioners is thus on the face of it both unreasonable and unsustainable in law
We may now examine the authorities cited before us
KN Ananda  Ors
vs The Karnataka State Financial Corpora tion Bangalore  Anr 1985 Labour  Industrial Cases Vol was not a case of fitment of the salaries of the old employees into the revised scales of pay
In that case what the respondent Karnataka State Financial Corpora tion had instead done was to prepare a conversion table and give the old employees salaries in the revised scale accord ing to the said table
The pay given tothe old employees according to the table had apparently no relation to the stages in the revised pay scale at which the salaries of the old employees had to be fitted
The Corporation also could not explain the basis on which the said table was worked out
In fact as is apparent from paragraph 16 of the judg ment the learned counsel for the Corporation being unable to furnish the basis of the differentiation in the salaries submitted before the court that in fact the Corporation wanted to protect the total emoluments and to allow the new employees who were petitioners in that case to earn incre ments over and above the pay as enacted in the Corpora tion s resolution of 30th March 1978 which was reproduced in the judgment
But the State Government did not agree
It is for this reason that the High Court there held that the conversion table insofar as it was made applicable to the old employees only was discriminatory in nature and therefore invalid
It will thus be seen that the facts in that case were different and hence the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case
P Savita So
Shri PL Savita vs Union of India Minis try of Defence Deptt of Defence Production New Delhi  Ors  was again not a case of fit ment of the salaries of the old employees into a new pay scale
In fact what was done in that case was to prescribe two separate pay scales for Senior Draftsmen by dividing them artificially into seniors and juniors and awarding Senior Draftsmen new scales while keeping the Junior Drafts men on the old scale
The Court therefore struck down the classification
DS Nakara  Ors
vs Union of India s case  was a case of dividing the same class of individu als namely the pensioners on the basis of an artificial date and giving benefit of pension calculated on a new basis to those employees only who had retired after 31st March 1979
while denying the benefit of the same 508 computation to those who had retired before that date
The classification made of the pensioners into two categories on the basis of their retirement date had no nexus to the object which was sought to be achieved namely to mitigate the hardship of the fixed income group on account of the ever rising prices and of the lowering of the value of the rupee
In fact it was pointed out by the Court in that case that by extending the benefit to those employees who had retired prior to March 1979 the Court was not making liber alisation of the pension retroactive
It was only giving the benefit of the same basis of computation to all the pension ers whether they had retired before or after that date
The Court also pointed out in that context that retroactiveness is implicit in the theory of wages
When revised pay scales are introduced from a certain date all existing employees are brought on to the revised scales adopting a theory of fitments and increments for the past service
The benefit of the revised scales is not limited to those who enter service subsequent to the date fixed for introducing the revised scales but is extended also to those in service prior to that date
These observations would also make it clear that it is a general practice recognized even by this Court that when new pay scales are introduced the salaries of the old employees have to be adjusted and fitted into the new scales by adopting some formula of fitments and increments for past service
In fact if such fitment is not made the old employees would get no benefit for the service rendered by them in the past and they would be placed on par with those who enter the service after the date of the revision of scales
That would be a case of unequals being treated equally
It is therefore an absence of fitments and ad justments and not their application which results in dis crimination
In State Government Pensioners  Association  Ors
vs State of Andhra Pradesh
1986 3 SCC 501 the Government Order dated 26th March 1980 providing for higher gratuity to the employees who had retired after 1st April 1978 was challenged by the Pensioners  Association on the ground that the benefit of the said higher gratuity was not made avail able to them
The Court held that the provision of payment of gratuity on stepped up basis prospectively from a speci fied date of retirement was not unconstitutional
In Kanpur Suraksha Karamchari Union vs Union of India the Government of India by its Order of 25th July 1981 accorded sanction to treat employees of canteens established in Defence Industrial Installation under Section 46 of the Factories Act as the Government employees with immediate effect
By an amend 509 ment the said Govt
Order was given effect to from 22nd October 1980
The question which was raised in the case was whether the employees who were recognised as Government employees wef 22nd October 1980 were entitled to calcu late the service rendered by them prior to 22nd October 1980 for the purpose of their pension and the Court held that the period of service rendered by the employees prior to that date has to be counted for the said benefit
This was thus in effect giving benefit to the old employees of their past service
In Reserve Bank of India  Ors
vs CN Sahasaranaman  Ors 1 what was challenged was the com bined seniority and scheme of promotions for cadres of Officers and non Officers in the Reserve Bank of India
In the past there was a separate departmentwise and grade wise seniority and the promotions to the cadres of Officers and non Officers were effected on the basis of such seniority
In September 1962 a need was felt for the maintenance of a combined seniority list at each centre for the purposes of promotions as recommended by the National Industrial Tribu nal presided over by Justice Desai
These recommendations for centre wise combined list were approved by this Court in 1966
In 1970 the supervisory staff in Class1 was upgraded to staff officers in Class 1 pursuant to the settlement between the employees and the Bank on January 9 1970 sub ject to certain conditions
On 6th June 1970 a circular was issued for introduction of written examination for depart mental promotions of clerks grade IAssistants etc
to the post of Staff Officers Grade II in all the groups
The circular was not however enforced
On May 7 1972 the Bank took several steps towards equalising promotional opportuni ties of employees by introducing what was known as Optee Scheme of 1965 and the Optee Scheme of 1966 and finally by entering into a settlement with the Association of the employees on May 7 1972
The Association by that settlement accepted the principle of maintenance of a combined seniori ty list at a centre
On the same date the Bank formulated a Scheme for promotions of staff officer Grade I1 after giving full opportunity to the Association to make its suggestions
On that occasion tile Bank and the Association further agreed by exchange of correspondence that the ratio of direct recruits to the promotees in the total strength of officers staff Grade II should be 175 825
On 13th May 1972 the Bank introduced administrative circular No 8 which was binding on all employees of the Bank
On the same date the Bank introduced another circular No 9 on Scheme of Combined Seniority List and switch over from clerical to non clerical wef May 7 1972 which was also binding on all employees
The constitutional validity of this Scheme also was upheld by this Court
510 On May 22 1974 the Bank took a decision based on the recommendations of the Cadre Review Committee and issued administrative circular No 15 to prepare a common seniority list and to provide for another group mobility at the lowest level of officers in Grade A wef January 1 1970
On January 7 1978 the Bank took further decision based on the recommendations of two Committees and issued circular No 8 to combine the seniority of all officers in Grade B and above wef May 22 1974 with a view to equalise the opportunity for promotion among officers
Three employees who were Grade II clerks working at the Nagpur branch of the Bank ever since their employment variously between 1962 to 1965 challenged clauses IIai of the Administrative Circular No 8 of May 13 1972 dealing with the Scheme for promotion from staff officer Grade 1I later designated as Grade A before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court
This clause provided for the number of candidates who will be qualified to appear in the test at the written examina tion
The clause stated that an estimate of the vacancies to occur in each office during the panel year ie 1st Septem ber to 31st August will be declared by the Bank in advance and the number of candidates in that office will not exceed twice the number of such vacancies subject to other clauses in the Scheme
The grievance of the petitioners was that the said clause was violative of their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since the chance to appear in the examination depended not on relative merits but merely on the fortuitous circumstance namely the number of vacancies occurring in the particular centre in a panel year which had no nexus with the purpose of promotion namely to secure a fresh cadre of staff officers and therefore the Scheme was bad in law
The High Court found force in the submission and struck down the said clause
In allowing the appeal filed by the Bank this Court there held among others that In service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitution ality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touch stone
Further whether there has been denial of equality of the view of promotion or any constitutional right infringed or not cannot be judged where interest of large number of people are con cerned in the abstract 32 The reference held pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 2nd May 1984 undoubtedly indicates that 511 majority of the employees are in favour of acceptance of the modified settlement
In matters of service conditions it is difficult to evolve as ideal set of norms governing various conditions of services and in grey area where service rules operated if more than one view is possible without sacrificing either reasons or commonsense the ultimate choice has necessarily to be conditioned by several considerations ensuring justice to as many as possible and injustice to as few
These principles however significant do not authorise the majority of the employees to trample upon the constitutional guarantees or rights of the individuals or minority employ ees
Majority cannot thwart or barter away the constitutional rights of the minorities
The constitutional guarantees are to protect this very danger
But in judging the content of the constitutional rights the entire perspective of the equality of opportunity here and denial of equal right in public employment have to be viewed in a fair reasonable and just perspec tive
Viewed in that light it is true there may be individual instances exemplifying injustices by postponing or delaying the chances of promotions of the contesting re spondents yet that does not deny them their constitutional right in its proper measure and the considerations that have weighed with the making of the modified scheme and in light of the other considerations it must be ob served that with whatever care and objectivity or foresight any rule is framed some hard ship inconvenience or injustice might to result but the paramount consideration is the reconciliation of the conflicting claims of two important constituents of service one which brings fresh clerical employees and the other mature experience
There has been a happy merger of these two considerations in the scheme proposed and in that merger no violation of the guaranteed rights of the opposing respondents have occurred
 The observations have much bearing on the present case
As has been pointed out hereinabove in the present case also refixation chart of the salaries of the employees was worked out with the approval of the Association of the Bank Officers concerned
The employees involved were further large in number
Any chart evolved to fit the salaries of the old employees who had entered the service during the whole span of the period prior to 1st February 1984 was bound to result in some employees getting slightly more and others getting 512 slightly less
It is not possible in such circumstances to satisfy all employees to the same degree
Hence as contend ed by the petitioners if in some cases
the employees have received some excessive benefit the chart cannot be faulted on that account
The chart as applied is a uniform one and is designed to adjust the old salaries in the new scale
In a large organisation with a large number of employees in volved in the exercise a few marginal cases of excessive benefits cannot be relied upon to invalidate the entire chart for no adjustment chart in such cases can be free from some defects
In Tarsem Lal Gautam  Anr
vs State Bank of Patiala  Ors AIR 1989 SC 30 and in CR Seshan  Anr
vs State of Maharashtra  Ors AIR 1989 SC 1287 this Court has in fact held that a higher category in the same class of employees on the basis of seniority cummerit can be carried out and a higher pay scale can be given to such higher category and that it is neither arbitrary nor unconstitu tional to do so
The aforesaid review of the authorities shows that none of them supports the proposition advanced by the peti tioners namely that the salaries of the old employees cannot be brought on to the new or revised pay scales by giving them fitment increments as is done in the present case
In fact in such a case to refuse to fit the salaries of the old employees in the new scales of pay by denying them the necessary fitment or adjustment increments is to deny them the equality of treatment
That amounts to ignor ing their past service and to treating them on par with the new entrants which would be unjust in itself
The adjustment increments granted to the old employees on such occasions automatically achieve the dual purpose of rewarding them for their past service and of adjusting their salaries in the new scale
The adjustment fitment and increments are there fore not discriminatory but eminently just and valid
In the circumstances we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same
There will however be no order as to costs
Y Lal Petition dismissed


Summary:
The respondent was appointed on 1571962 as a Chemistry lecturer in Kulohaskar Ashram Agriculture Intermediate College run by the appellant society
By a communication dated 2061963 he was informed by the management that his services were no longer required after 1571963
He filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the manage ment from proceeding with the proposed action
But the management having withdrawn the letter he withdrew the suit as having become infructuous
However on 2881964 the respondent was placed under suspension whereupon he again filed a civil suit for a declaration that the order of suspension was illegal
The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for
On appeal the High Court affirmed that decision on 9469
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court the management appellant had passed a fresh order suspending the respondent pending enquiry on certain allegations
The respondent again filed a civil suit to challenge the competency of the managing committee to take action against him
In the said suit he also pleaded that the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools having not been taken the order placing him under suspen sion was bad
The Munsiff Court accepted the suit and de clared the suspension order as illegal and void
The first appellate court reversed that order and the respondent preferred second appeal to the High Court
During the pendency of the respondent s second appeal UP Secondary Educational Laws Amendment Act 1976 came into force from 18876 which inter alia provided that prior approval of the District Inspector of School was necessary before any action could be taken against teaching staff of a college
The respondent sought to amend the pleadings of second appeal in consonance with the Act but 451 the High Court declined but he succeeded on this question before this Court
Contemporaneously with the litigation set out above the respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of salary past pendente lite and future
It was claimed for the period between 2121964 and 2021967
The trial court decreed the suit for Rs781292 p being the arrears of salary for the period of three years
The management appealed to the Dis trict Court and the respondent filed cross objection
As stated earlier the second appeal preferred by the respond ent was pending in the High Court
Hence the parties moved the High Court for withdrawing the appeal pending before the District Court for being disposed of alongwith the second appeal No 20381970 which request was accepted and the said appeal came to be registered as First Appeal No 460 of 1982
The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment whereby the second appeal was dismissed and the finding as to the validity of the suspension order was confirmed
However the First Appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was reversed and a suit for ar rears of salary filed by the respondent was dismissed
The respondent appealed to this Court and his appeal was allowed and his claim to salary between 2021964 to 1511966 was settled at Rs 10000 and the court further held that the order of suspension ceased to be operative wef 17101975
Thereafter the respondent on May 18 1986 moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for a writ of Mandamus against the State of UP and the management of the College for his reinstatement in service and for payment of entire arrears of salary
The High Court accepted the writ petition and granted him the relief asked for
Hence these appeals by the Management of the school and the State of UP
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD Indeed the reinstatement would be an unwise move from any point of view
In educational institutions the Court cannot focus only on the individual
The Court must have regard to varying circumstances in the academic atmos phere and radically changed position of the individual sought to be reinstated
The court must have regard to interests of students as well as the institution
459E In the instant case during the gap of twenty five years the respondent must have clearly lost touch with Chemistry as well as the 452 art of teaching
It must have been also deeply buried and disintegrated under the new acquisition of his legal knowl edge
Reinstatement of such a person seems to be unjustified and uncalled for
459G Legal profession may not be considered as an employment but the income from profession or avocation if not negligi ble cannot be ignored while determining damages or back wages for payment
463G In a case like this
the Government cannot be saddled with the liability to make payment
There is no relationship of master and servant between Government and respondent and such relationship existed only between the management and respondent
So far as statutory liability to pay salary to teacher is concerned the Government has been paying salary to Dr Gopendra Kumar who has since been appointed as Lec turer in the place of the respondent
Therefore the manage ment alone should pay the amount ordered
464D E Vaish Degree College vs Lakshmi Narain  GR Tiwari vs District Board Agra and Anr   59 The Executive Committee of UP Warehousing Corpo ration Ltd vs Chandra Kiran Tyagi   265 Bank of Baroda vs Jewan Lal Mehrotra and Sirsi Municipality vs Kom Francis   Smt
J Tiwari vs Smt
Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir  Ors   Deepak Kumar Biswas vs The Director of Public Instruc tions  Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvaran Jayanti Mahotsav Samarak Trust  Ors
VR Rudani  Ors  at 697 TrilokChand Modichand  Ors
vs HB Munshi  Anr  Maimoona Khatun  Anr
vs State of U P  Anr
   Managing Director UP Warehousing Corporation  Anr
vs Vinay Narain Vajpayee   Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda  Ors
vs RS Thakur AIR 1968 SC 2112 and SM Saiyad vs Baroda Municipal Corpora tion 1984 Supp
SCC 378 referred to