WP(C) 5996/2006 MCMCBEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. M H Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. D Goswami, learned counsel representing ASCARD Bank (Deposit Wing) as wel l as Ms. R Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Government Advocate, Assam. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting as ide and quashing of the Annexure-H letter dated 27.09.2006 and also the order da ted 12.11.2003 by which the respondent No.5 was promoted as Branch Manager of th e respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, he being senior to the responden t No.5 and others mentioned in the representation dated 26.04.2006 annexed to th e affidavit filed on 08.01.2006, he is entitled to get salary at per with his ju niors. The grievance of the petitioner can be summarised from what has been sta ted in the aforesaid representation dated 26.04.2006 addressed to the Managing D irector of the respondent Bank. Relevant portion of the said representation is q uoted below. One of the Executive Officer (Finance & accounts) Interim Board of Mana gement of the Bank Sri Moni Gogoi injudiciously offered a large scale increment to the all staff of Haflong Branch in the month of August 2003 and later on the aforementioned increment had been increased again more than 100% for the next mo nth of September 2003 by the said executive Officer had intentionally deprived m e from the said increment that all of the staff obtained the increment more than 100% but I have getting only 15% increment of which my salaries is increased fr om my existing salary i.e. Rs.3,300/- to Rs.3,800/- that is nothing but a sample of step mothered behaviour (Annexed two of the salary approval slips for the mo nth of August & September 2003 along with the actual salary structure of Haflong Branch for the year of 2003 as documents No.4, 5 & 6 for your ready information ). In this regards I have addressed to the concern authority of issuing the same through proper channel by one of my representation dated 31/10/2003 but th e petition was not responded by themselves. Later on both of the matter of super seded promotion and injustified increment had been imposed to the Hon’ble Gauhat i High Court by registering the case in W.P.(C) No.10159/2003 for the right just ification. (Enclosed the copy of the letter dated 31/10/2003 as documents No.7 f or your information). In addition to the aforementioned increment Sri kanu Chanda the acting M anager, Haflong branch of the Bank who is junior most for 5 years and less quali fied than me is drawing his slalry as 8,000/- per month and he had also drawn hi s arrear from October 2003. On the other hand one of the Ex-executive officer cu m Branch Manager, Goalpara Branch of the Bank Sri Monwar Hussain who is also jun ior for 3 years than me is drawing his salary as 20,000/- per moth from the depa rtment of the Bank. So, my claiming for 125% increment with arrear from October 2003 is hund red percent reasonable that whereas the increment one of my junior staff Sri Bab ul Acharjee is obtaining around 123% from October 2003 and as a result of which the salary of Sri Babul Acharjee is increased from which existing salary i.e. Rs .2,244/- to Rs.5,020/- it is more than double. It is most inevitable to remove Sri Kanu Chanda from the post of Branch manager and entrust the petitioner with promoting the said post at your earliest possible for the protection of the Haflong Branch of the bank from the hand of corruption and fixed the salary with higher pay along with the arrear with effec t from August 2003 as per the provision of law and order of the Hon’ble High Cou rt. Under the circumstances stated above and the highlighted all the matter in details before you to take the appropriate step for provide justice on my par t in the aforementioned matter of the same in accordance with the provisions of law and order of dated 09/03/2006 in WP(C) No.10159/2003 passed by the Hon’ble G auhati High Court. On an earlier occasion also the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.10159/2003 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.03.2006 without, however, interfering with the promotion order of the respondent No.5. For a ready reference, the said order dated 09.03.2006 is quote d below. Heard Mr. M H Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and al so Mr. B D Goswami, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Bank. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for the following relief : ’Under the facts and circumstances it is therefore prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a rule calling u pon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari shall not be is sued by setting aside the increment or salary approval slip prepared by the mana ger, Finance and Accounts, ASCARD Bank Ltd.(Deposit Wing), Guwahati and direct t he respondent to give increment to the petitioner at the rate of 125% per month and also by setting aside the promotion order No. ASCARD Bank Ltd./DW/HO/42/1223 /2003 dtd. 12.11.2003 issued by the Executive Officer, Interview Board of the Ma nagement ASCARD Bank Ltd, Guwahati and to promote the petitioner as B.M. and on perusal on records, going through the show cause filed if any and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute and or pass any other order/ord ers as your Lordship may deem fit and proper. - AND - Pending disposal of the rule Your Lordships may pleased to direct the Respondent not to give effect to the increment for 2003 and promotion order dtd. 12.11.200 3 issued by the Executive Officer, Interview Board of Management, ASCARD Bank, G uwahati for ends of justice’ During the course of argument, Mr. Choudhury relied upon Annexure-A and B to show that the respondent Bank is adopting pay scales in indiscriminate mann er. Both the documents read together ex-facie suggest that the junior employees are paid more than the senior employees. The reason for such discrimination is n ot discernible. However, Mr. Goswami submitted that there is no fixed pay struct ure in the Bank and the petitioner has joined the service at Halflong branch in the year 2001 and, therefore, he cannot claim higher salary than other employees working in this Branch from before and legitimately claim promotion in superses sion of all those working in this Branch. It appears that the petitioner being senior to many employees is being paid less . There is also no fixed and determined policy with regard to pay and allowances in the Bank. Situated thus, it would be apt to refer the matter to the responde nt authority for consideration of the petitioner’s case for higher pay. Hence, t his petition is disposed of with direction that the writ petitioner shall submit a representation before the authority giving in details his grievances and the authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of law and pass orders with reasons within a period of 2 months from the day when the repr esentation is submitted. No costs. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the Managing Directo r of the respondent Bank has passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2006 which re ads as follows. Ref. No.UCB/ASCARD (D.W)60(II)/2006/2580 Date 27.09.2006 To Shri Kubbat Ali Mandal, Sr. Office Assistant, ASCARD Bank Ltd. (Deposit Wing) Halflong Branch Ref :- Your representation dated 26th April, 2006. Sub : promotion to the post of Branch Manager with higher pay. Dear sir, We write to inform you that your above representation together with the Order dated 09.03.2006 of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court were placed before the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Union Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Board considered and examined your application and the relevant reco rds carefully. In absence of any staff rule and any determined policy in regards to the pay allowances, promotion etc. for the employees of the ASCARD Bank Ltd (Deposit Wing), the Board could not consider your prayer for promotion and highe r salary and as such rejected the same. Yours faithfully Sd/- Managing Director From the above what is seen is that the stand of the respondent Bank is that in absence of any staff rule and any departmental policy in regard to pay a nd allowances, promotion etc. for the employees of ASCARD Bank limited (Deposit Wing), the prayer of the petitioner for promotion and higher salary could not be considered. In the aforesaid representation dated 26.04.2006, it is the definit e stand of the petitioner that the particular Executive Officer (Finance and Acc ounts) injudiciously offered large scale increments to all the Haflong Branch em ployees in the month of August, 2003 and the said increment was further increase d by more than 100%. On the other hand, the petitioner was granted only 15% of t he increment and consequently, he used to receive lesser salary than his juniors . As regards the plea that the respondent No.5 was entitled to get higher salary, the respondent No.4 in his affidavit has stated that the petitioner on h is transfer from Diphu Branch to Haflong Branch in the year 2001 did not join th ere and it was only after two and half years he had joined at Haflong. According to the respondent No.4, the petitioner did not render any service at Diphu Bran ch from December, 1996 to June, 1997 and again for the period from September, 19 99 to April, 2001. As a consequence, he was not allowed to draw salary. Accordin g to the respondent No.4, it is on that count the petitioner is not entitled to draw any increment. Consequently, if he is in receipt of lesser salary than his juniors, that cannot be a case of stepping up of pay. In Para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated thus. 6. That as regards the statements made in Para-5 it is stated that it is a fact that the employees who were working in Haflong Branch were given increment by t he then Interim Board of Management (IBM) Constituted as per the directions of t his Hon’ble Court but in the meantime after the institution was taken over by th e Board of Directors of the Union Co-operative Bank Ltd. the matter was rectifie d by the Board. Upon the Haflong Branch of the ASCARD Bank Ltd. (D/W) along with 9 other braches had been allowed to function under the banner of Union Co-opera tive Bank Ltd. the authorities have stipulated fixed salary to be paid to the Ma nagers and other staff of the respective branches as shown below till finalisati on of the salary structure for the different grades. As per the said arrangement the Union Co-operative Bank Ltd. will frame the salary structure which will hav e to be accepted by the staff absorbed in the Union Co-opreative Bank Ltd. Designation Amt. Of salary 1. Branch Manager Rs.3,000/- PM 2. Accountant, Cashier, Rs.2,000/- PM Office Assistant 3. Grade IV Rs.1,000/- PM The deponent also denies all statements made in Para 5 that do not confo rm to records and the writ petitioner is to make strict proof thereof. As regards the promotion of the respondent No.5, it has been stated that he has rightly promoted to the post of Branch Manager and the same was as per d irection and approval of the interim Board of management proposed by the Reserve Bank of India and approved by this court in Civil Rule (PIL) No.2425/1985 and s ubsequently accepted by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. All the above aspects of the matter have not been dealt with by the Mana ging Director of the respondent Bank while passing the impugned order dated 27.0 9.2006. It is another thing to say that there is no Staff Rule and any departmen tal policy in regard to pay and allowances and promotion for the employees of th e respondent Bank, but it is altogether a different thing to judge the admissibi lity of the petitioner to receive higher pay and/or increment applying the same yardstick and parameter as has been applied to his juniors. In this connection, the specific stand of the petitioner in his representation has been noted above. On the face of it, the impugned order is a non-speaking one and does not deal w ith the specific observations made in order dated 9.3.2006 passed in WP(C) No.10 159/2003. In view of the above, the communication dated 27.09.2006 (Annexure-H) st ands set aside and quashed and the matter shall now go back to the Managing Dire ctor of the respondent Bank for proper disposal of the representation of the pet itioner by a speaking order taking into account all relevant factors, Rules and guidelines holding the field. Let the representation be disposed of in terms of this order as expediti ously as possible, preferably within 31st December, 2010. Writ petition stands disposed of.