il Appeal No 3 107 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 148
1990 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No 407 of 1985
HN Salve
KS Parihar and HS Parihar for the Appellant
PK Goswami Kailash Vasdev and MJ Paul for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
Special Ieave granted
Counsel heard
462 This is an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India by special leave
The contesting respondent being respondent No 1 is an association of its officers at its Gauhati unit
The respondent association referred to hereinafter as the respondent represents the interests of 45 officers belonging to Grades A to C employed in the appellant bank at its unit at Gauhati
It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant that there was difficulty in per suading officers of the appellant posted outside the North Eastern region to accept transfers to the unit of the appel lant in the North Eastern part of the country which unit was located at Gauhati in Assam
It also emerges from the record that the Gauhati station was regarded as a hardship station by the officers who were transferred to the Gauhati unit from other regions of the country
The Government of India found a similar difficulty in persuading its officers to accept postings in the NorthEastern region and they were given substantial incentives to accept transfers to the North Eastern region
We are not here concerned directly with the actual benefits granted by the Government of India but what is material is that such benefits had to be given by the Government of India
By a letter dated December 9 1983 certain incentives and allowances were provided by the appellant to its officers posted at Gauhati who were not from the North Eastern regions
Those allowances were gener ally known as special duty allowances
We are not much concerned with the details as to how the special duty allow ances were calculated but the main special duty allowance basically comprised 25 of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs400 per month
These allowances were also known as special compensatory allowances or remote locality allow ances
By a Memorandum issued by the appellant on April 11 1985 an adhoc increase in salary was effected for non local officers and an option was given to them either to choose the adhoc increase or the special duty allowances for the period during which they were posted at Gauhati
The re spondent demanded the extension of the said benefit to the local officers by its letter dated May 10 1985
We may mention here that the local officers who were posted at the Gauhati did get an extra allowance in addition to their salaries but it was considerably smaller than the main compensatory allowance paid to the officers from outside the NorthEastern region who were transferred to Gauhati
Certain other benefits were also allowed to non local officers transferred to Gauhati but there is no need to refer to them in detail
The appellant declined to allow the same allow ances to local officers posted at Gauhati as were given to the officers from other regions transferred to Gauhati as stated earlier
It is this decision which gave rise to the writ petition from the decision in which this appeal arises
463 It was the contention of the respondent before the Gauhati High Court that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati whether they were from the North Eastern region or outside had to live in the same conditions and suffer from the same hardships and hence if any allow ance was given to the officers transferred from outside to the Gauhati office the very same allowance should also be given to the local officers posted at Gauhati
In the coun ter filed in the High Court by the appellant bank the Deputy Chief Officer of the appellant bank averted that the hardships faced by the non local officers are greater than those faced by the local officers
The scheme of adhoc incentives was introduced to tide over the problem of adequately staffing the Gauhati office
Non local officers experienced difficulties in getting accommodation getting familiar with the language and so on and some incentives had to be given to them to mitigate the hardships experi enced by them on transfer to Gauhati
It was clarified that the said incentives were temporary and because of the pecu lier circumstances prevailing at the moment in the North Eastern region which was regarded as a difficult region
It was accepted that considerable difficulties would have to be suffered by the officers posted there who hailed from places outside the NorthEastern region
The contention of the appellant bank failed to find favour with the High Court which took the view that all officers at Gauhati suffered from substantially the same hardship and it pointed out that for example even officers from outside from Tripura who were posted at Gauhati would suffer almost the same degree of hardship as officers transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North Eastern regions although Tripu ra was in the North Eastern region
The High Court took the view that the local officers of the appellant bank Gauhati were discriminated against and directed that they must be given the same benefits as the non local officers trans ferred to Gauhati
It is the correctness of the view taken by the High Court which is sought to be impugned before us in this appeal
We are of the opinion that the High Court was with respect in error in taking the view that officers from the North Eastern region who were posted at Gauhati
either on transfer or otherwise sufferred the same hardships as officers from other regions transferred to Gauhati
The hardship and inconvenience sufferred by an officer of the appellant bank who was transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North Eastern region would certainly be more acute than those suffered by local officers posted at Gau hati
His mother tongue might completely be different in speech and even as far as the script is concerned from the 464 language used by the local people at Gauhati
He and his family members would therefore
find it very difficult to communicate freely with the local people
His children might find it difficult to get admission to a school and pursue their education at Gauhati
They would be unfamiliar with the surroundings and the customs of the people
The hard ships faced by an officer say from the Western or Southern regions of India or North India posted at Gauhati would be qualitatively as well as quantitatively greater than the hardships faced by the local officers posted at Gauhati
It may be that some of the officers coming from the North Eastern region may also face considerable hardships when posted at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a few such officers would not render the payment of special allow ance exclusively to officers transferred from distant regions discriminatory and bad in law
The High Court was therefore not justified in coming to the conclusion that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati sufferred from the same degree of hardship
A person trans ferred from outside the North Eastern region to Gauhati would normally have to face more severe difficulties than an officer from the North Eastern region posted in Gauhati or at the least the appellant bank could reasonably take that view
Moreover as pointed out by the appellant bank in the counter that they were finding it difficult to persuade their officers from outside to accept transfers to Gauhati and it is common knowledge that an office of a large bank cannot be run efficiently by officers a large number of whom have been posted there by transfers against their will and under the threat of disciplinary action
The work done by them could hardly be expected to be satisfactory
After all the appellant the Reserve Bank of India is a banking institution and if in the interest of efficiency and proper working it bona fide took the decision in the circumstances set out earlier to grant some extra benefits to the non local officers transferred to Gauhati with a view to main tain efficient working of its unit at Gauhati in our opin ion they cannot be treated as being guilty of any unlawful discrimination
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court
The writ petition filed by respond ent No 1 is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs throughout
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants and its predecessors continuously held licences under Sections 13 and 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act to distil rectified spirit or denatured spirit or liquor
The last of such licence which the appellant had related to the period from 141977 to 3131981
The next licensing period commenced from 141981 to 3131986 and the respondent Rajdhani Distilleries Corporation became the successful tenderer in respect thereof which the appellant impugned by means of a writ petition before the High Court but failed both before the High Court as also in this Court in a special leave petition
Thereupon the appellant was called upon twice to be present to deliver the possession of the distillery to the respondent but the appellant did not co operate
Likewise the appellant did not co operate in fixing the value of the plant and machinery of the distill ery and warehouses as a result of which a committee was appointed in terms of the licence which fixed a sum of Rs105301645 p as the total value payable to the appel lant
Due to the non cooperation of the appellant the Excise Department took over the possession of the distillery after making inventory of stock in hand in the presence of the witnesses and the same was handed over to the respond ent
The appellant thereafter demanded redelivery of the distillery and on his failure to get the same it filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for a writ of manda mus seeking inter alia restitution of the distillery and the warehouses etc challenging the quantum of valuation fixed
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
The High Court found that the appellant had no exclusive possession which always remained with the excise Department the appellant worked out the contract of manufacturing rectified spirit etc
and that due to non cooperation of the appellant possession was taken and delivered to the incoming licensee as per rules and the 479 480 appellant was not entitled to restitution
Hence this appeal by special leave
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that clause 50 enjoins the State to fix the valuation of all the materials belonging to the appellant and pay the same to it as an outgoing licensee before taking over possession and handing over the distillery and the attached warehouses to the respondents
According to it it is a condition precedent under clause 50 to dispossess the appellant and start the operation of the contract by the respondent which admittedly were not done
This is a contravention of the mandatory conditions of the licence and the rules
The respondents on the other hand contend that the appellant is not entitled to restitution as it was due to its non cooper ation possession was taken
According to them prior valua tion and payment are not condition precedent to work out the licence
Partly allowing the appeal this Court HELD In the light of the scheme of valuation of the plant and machinery of the distillery or the apparatus in the warehouses and the stock in trade the Court held that strict construction of clause 50 would lead to innumerable complications and loss of public revenue
We are inclined to hold that before the expiry of the licence if the outgoing licensee cooperates the value can be fixed with consensus payment should also be made within the time stipulated
In all other cases it could be done even after the expiry of the stipulated period
In that perspective the Court had no hesitation to hold that prior valuation of plant and machin ery in the distillery stock in trade therein or the value of the machinery in the warehouses and stock of the liquor stored therein and payment thereof before taking possession and handing them over to the incoming licensee is not a mandatory nor a condition precedent
Therefore taking over possession from the appellant on August 28 1981 and handing over the plant and machinery etc
to the respondent is not illegal
490C E In this case admittedly the conditions of licence are not questioned but expressly given up in the High Court
Even before us the validity of the valuation has not been questioned
It cannot cut the branch on which appellant sits to assail the constitutional validity of the conditions of the licence
Accordingly we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant is not entitled to the restitution of the plant and machinery of the distillery at Ujjain and the attached warehouses
491A B It is open to the appellant to make a representation to Government and any officer not below a Secretary preferably of the concerned 481 Department would go into the matter and decide the value as per the material on record
It is open to the appellant to place all its material
It is also open to the respondent to place its material and the authority would consider after giving an opportunity of hearing through counsel if asked for and decide the value accordingly
491D Godhra Electricity Co Ltd and Anr
vs State of Gujarat and Ors
   Hat Shankar  Ors
vs Dy
Excise of M Pv
Nandial Jaiswal   Referred to