1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHA PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 140 of 1997 Date of decision 22.3.2010 _____________________________________________________________ Yash Pal Kapoor and others ....Petitioners Versus Himachal Gramin Bank and others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. K.D Sood, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 26 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.2, 4 : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. to 7, 9 to 11, 13 to 17 and 19 to 22. For respondent No. 24 : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (oral) The petitioners challenge Annexure P-1, which is a letter dated 1.11.1993 sent to one of the petitioners, Mr. Yash Pal Kapoor, informing him that his representation stands decided after Annexure P-2, seniority list has been furnished to him, which is circular No. 9/97 issued by the Himachal Gramin Bank in _________________________________________________________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 response to the representations from officers/group of officers, who were working as Field Supervisors, stating that the seniority list of the officers as on 31.12.1992 has been issued in terms of the guidelines of the R.C Gupta Working Group Report and instructions issued by the NABARD and Annexure P-5, which is a seniority list dated 31.3.1993. 2. The case pleaded by the petitioners is that they started their career with the Himachal Gramain Bank, Mandi. Petitioner No. 1 Yash Pal Kapoor was appointed as Clerk w.e.f 17.9.1979 and then Field Supervisor from 25.10.1985. Petitioner No. 2 Surinder Singh Thakur was appointed on 1.8.1980 as Supervisor and petitioner No. 3 Om Prakash Shukla was appointed as Field Supervisor on 26.3.1982. The petitioners urged that with their appointment as Field Supervisor, they are to be treated as Officers within the meaning of Regulation 3(ii) of the Himachal Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation, 1980. Pursuant to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal and the Equation Committee Report, the posts of Senior Clerks and Filed Supervisors were combined and the post of Filed Supervisor was equated with those of OJM-I (Officers Junior Management Grade-I), w.e.f 1.9.1987 vide order Annexure P-3. The petitioners further pleaded that respondents No. 2 to 23 were appointed as OJM-1 after 1.9.1987 and in these circumstances, the petitioners could not be ranked junior to respondents No.2 to 23 who joined services in the bank after 1.9.1987. According to the petitioners, seniority is to be reckoned in grade or scale from the 3 date of their appointment in that grade/scale. The petitioners represented against the seniority list Annexure P-5, but by a circular Annexure P-2, the representations were rejected by the bank on the ground that the service rendered by the petitioners as Field Supervisors before it was equated with the post of OJM Scale-1, cannot be reckoned for purposes of grant of seniority in the OJM Scale-1. The petitioners submit that counting of seniority w.e.f 22.2.1991 and not 1.9.1987 on the date, when they were given the financial benefit, is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They submit that depriving them of seniority from the date when they were granted the financial benefit, illegally deprives them of their right for consideration to the Middle Management Grade-II. In case respondents No. 2 to 23 are promoted earlier, the petitioners would loose not only in terms of monetary benefits available to them, but also the seniority, which would have a cascading effect in consideration for the next higher post(s). 3. The petition is resisted by the Himachal Gramin Bank respondent No. 1 on a number of grounds including delay, laches, alternate remedy etc. The other point urged for consideration is that the Gramin Bank has only followed the NABARD instruction which, in fact, was implementing the Equation Committee Report pursuant to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal (known as Justice Obul Reddy Report). The further objection is that a Working Group Report was submitted pursuant to the Justice Obul Reddy Committee Report. The committee being composed of experts and implementing the 4 award, it is not open to this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to determine question of fact otherwise arrived at by an expert committee. They submit that in order to remove the pay anomaly, the benefit of the pay scale was given w.e.f 1.9.1987, however, for the purposes of seniority, both posts i.e. those of the petitioners who were working as Field Supervisor(s) and directly recruited as OJM, could not be equated. 4. Respondents 2, 4, 7, 11, 15 17 & 22 have also filed their reply. Their submission is that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the report because after the Justice Obul Reddy award, it was implemented by letter dated 22nd February, 1991 on the recommendation of the R.C Gupta Working Group Report. In this report, under clause 25 of Annexure-II, it has been specifically stated that Branch Managers/Officers who have been promoted/directly recruited before February 22, 1991, would rank above the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list. 5. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank versus D.B Sharma and others (2001) 1 SCC 353, the Supreme Court was dealing with the implementation of the award of the National Industrial Tribunal. Considering the background, the Supreme Court considered the fact that the employees of Regional Rural Bank had filed a number of petitions in the Supreme Court and disputes so raised, were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which consisted of Justice Obul Reddy, 5 retired Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court holds:- “1.….........The said Tribunal elaborately considered the materials placed before it and gave its award on 30-4-1988. The said Tribunal by its award came to hold that so far as the equation of posts and consequent fixation of new scale of pay, allowances and other benefits for officers and other employees of the regional rural banks on a par with the officers and other employees of comparable level in the corresponding posts in the sponsor banks and their fitment into new scale of pay, as are applicable to officers of the sponsor bank in corresponding posts of comparable level is concerned, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal the Government of India constituted a committee, called the “Equation Committee” and referred the award to the Committee seeking for a report in the matter of equation...........” (p.p. 356-357) The Court further holds:- “5.........Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the officers and employees of the regional rural banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits. In para 4.428, the Tribunal held as follows: “4.428. So far as the equation of posts and the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay allowances and other benefits for officers and other employees of RRBs on a par with the officers and other employees of comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the new scales of pay as are applicable to officers of sponsor banks in corresponding posts of comparable level, it is a matter which has to 6 be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. This will also include the pay scales, benefits, other allowances and fitment of sub-staff of RRBs with the sub-staff of sponsor banks. This award is accordingly passed and it shall cover all existing RRBs. The award shall be given effect to from Ist day of September, 1987.............” (p. 361) “6. The next question then that arises for consideration is as to what has been done by the Central Government to arrive at the parity. The Central Government appointed an Equation Committee, which Committee discharged the function of equation of posts with the sponsor banks................” (p. 361) “7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be justified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P v. J.P Chaurasia this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts and equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. Bearing in mind the aforesaid parameters and on examining the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court has 7 tried to tinker with the conclusions and decisions of Equation Committee, even in the absence of any allegations or materials that such decision of the Equation Committee was on extraneous considerations. The judgment and direction of the High Court on this score is accordingly vitiated. …..............(p. 363) 6. The Supreme Court adjudicated the legality and validity of the award made by the National Industrial Tribunal and the subsequent follow up recommendations of various Committees. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court holding that the findings of the Tribunal were illegal and unconstitutional was set aside on the ground that the entire dispute relating to equation of posts, pay and another benefits was referred to the Tribunal which gave detailed findings and its implementation by an expert body could not be tampered with. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that non grant of seniority in the cadre as OJM-I w.e.f 1.9.1987, the date on which the post of Field Supervisor was abolished, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as there could not be two cadres, one for the purposes of pay and another for the purposes of seniority. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Narayanan and others versus State of Karnataka and others 1994 Supp (1) SCC 44 and Uday Pratap Singh and others versus State of Bihar and others 1994 Supp (3) SCC 451 that retrospective merger of cadres cannot take away the right of accrued seniority. 8 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.C Gupta and others versus Lt. Governor of Delhi and others 1994 Supp (3) SCC 408 to urge that where there was a merger of two categories, namely, teachers of the TGT (Middle) and TGT (Higher Secondary) into one cadre, then the period of service in the lower cadre would not be counted for the purposes of seniority in the new merged cadre without entering into this controversy. 9. Annexure R-1/A is the memorandum issued by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) to all the Regional Rural Banks. It details the instructions for implementation of the National Industrial Tribunal Award, Equation Committee recommendations and the Working Group Report on the Regional Rural Banks. It notices that NABARD had constituted a Working Group vide notification dated 22.8.1991 under the chairmanship of one of its Chief General Managers and eight other members. The group submitted its report on 17th February, 1992. It is a detailed report dealing with the question of seniority. Clause 25 of this report reads as under: “25. Seniority of Field Supervisors, Branch Managers and Junior Clerk- cum-Cashiers, Senior Clerk-cum Cashiers after 1.9.87.” GOI, vide circular dated 22.2.1991, have abolished the posts of Sr. Clerk-cum- Cashiers and Field Supervisors retrospectively from 1.9.1987. However, during the interregnum i.e from 1.9.1987 to 9 22.2.1991, the RRBs had recruited a few Field Supervisors, Officers and Junior Clerk- cum-Cashiers and/or effected promotions from Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers to Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers, Senior Clerk-cum- Cashiers to Field Supervisors and Field Supervisors to Officers. The issue, therefore, was preparing a common seniority list for clerical and officer cadre on just and reasonable basis. It has been decided that as on 22.2.1991, all the Branch Managers/ Officers should rank above the Field Supervisors in the combined seniority list. On the same analogy, the Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers will rank senior to the Junior Clerk-cum- Cashiers.” 10. What this circular does, it is to implement the award of the National Industrial Tribunal as also the subsequent committees appointed. There is no material on the record of the case to show that these recommendations have been made for some ulterior purpose. The Equation Report having been considered by an Expert Committee, I do not find any illegality in the implementation of the award. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. March 22,2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (H.L.) Judge.