THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 36883 of 1998 O R D E R: Heard Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This Writ Petition has been instituted by an employee of State Bank of Hyderabad, complaining, in essence, that the fitment of his salary and allowances, upon employment in respondent – State Bank of Hyderabad, has not been carried out properly. The writ petitioner appears to have been enrolled in Indian Army on 31st August 1963 as a Combatant Clerk. After remarkable period of service of more than 18 years, he was transferred to the Pension Establishment of the Army in the substantive rank of Hawaldar Clerk on 4th May 1982. He was employed with the Telecom Department and he appeared for the selections conducted by the Regional Recruitment Board (State Bank Group, Hyderabad Circle) for recruitment, to the post of Cashier-cum-Clerk. He was one of the selected candidates and he was allotted to the State Bank of Hyderabad for appointment. Accordingly, the writ petitioner came to be appointed as a Cashier-cum- Clerk in the respondent –State Bank of Hyderabad and he joined the said post at its Nirmal Branch on 10th October 1984. The case of the writ petitioner is that the Government of India’s instructions in the matter of fixation of pay of the re-employed pensioners, as spelt out in OM, dated 25.11.1958 of the Ministry of Finance and OM dated 11.04.1963 of the Ministry of Finance, has not been adhered to by the respondent Bank. The claim of the respondent Bank is that as per the particulars available from the pension record of the writ petitioner, his basic pay at the time of his discharge from the Indian Army was Rs.339/- and he was awarded classification pay of Rs.37.50 ps. and dearness allowance of Rs.108/-. He was also awarded additional dearness allowance of Rs.232.90 ps. and good service pay of Rs.12/-, thus put together, total of Rs.729.40 ps. was worked out, whereas, the basic pay, upon appointment in State Bank of Hyderabad, was fixed at Rs.520/- with dearness allowance of Rs. 301.60 ps. making it a total of Rs.821.60 ps. which is nearly a Rs.100/- more than the last pay drawn by him in the Indian Army and hence, the fitment of his pay in the State Bank of Hyderabad is correctly shown. The question that boils down is as to whether the policy decisions taken by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, in the matter of fixation of pay of the ex-servicemen, have been followed properly by the Bank or not. Office Memorandum bearing No. 8(34)/E- III/57, dated 25th November 1998 of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), Government of India, would make it clear that the pay of pensioners, including officers, who have retired on compassionate provident fund basis, from the service of the Government, shall be fixed on re-employment at the minimum stage of the scale of pay prescribed for the post against which the individual is re-employed. In addition to this pay, the pensioner may be permitted to draw separately pension sanctioned to him or retain any other form of retiremental benefits for which he is otherwise eligible, provided that the total amount of initial pay + gross amount of pension and/or the pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits does not exist, the pay he drew before his retirement or Rs.3,000/- whichever is less. In the instant case, the pay of the writ petitioner was admittedly fixed at the minimum of scale of pay which is Rs.520/-, fixed for the post of Cashier-cum-Clerk of the State Bank of Hyderabad. He was also awarded dearness allowance thereon at the rate of Rs.301.60 ps., thus totalling an amount of Rs.821.60 ps.. This was certainly more than the total emoluments including the basic pay of Rs.339/- drawn by him while he was in service of the Indian Army. Therefore, it will be difficult to hold that the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance in their Office Memorandum dated 25th November 1958 are in any way violated. Similarly, if we look at the Office Memorandum dated 11th April 1963, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), Government of India, it becomes clear that as a special case, the Government ordered that service rendered as Combatant Clerks is to be treated as equivalent to service as L.D.Cs/Junior Clerks in Civil Departments irrespective of the pay drawn in the Armed Forces and that when such persons are absorbed in posts of L.D.Cs/Junior Clerks in Civil Departments, after their release/retirement from the Armed Forces, their initial pay in the post of L.D.Cs/Junior Clerks may be fixed at a higher stage in the scale above the minimum equal to the number of completed years of service as Combatant Clerks. These instructions are clearly intended for regulating the pay fixation of the former Combatant Clerks, who got re-employed as L.D. Clerks or Junior Clerks against civil posts in the service of the Government of India. Paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum, dated 11th April 1963 makes this position clear, in the following words: “ 3. The power to fix pay as above is already delegated to the Ministries of the Government of India. For the purpose of this order, the C & AG will have the same powers as Ministries of Government of India. Orders fixing the pay in such cases should be issued by invoking the provisions of F.R.27.” Therefore, the contentions canvassed by the writ petitioner based upon this Office Memorandum is clearly misplaced, for, the writ petitioner was not re-employed in any Department or Ministry of the Government of India, but he was employed against a vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen in the respondent State Bank of Hyderabad. Therefore, the Office Memorandum is not attracted. Secondly, the writ petitioner is appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier and the necessary comparison of the studies of the pay structure of the said post with that of L.D.C/Junior Assistant in any of the Ministries or Departments of Government of India, is not available on record. Similarly, when we look at the Office Memorandum dated 20th January 1983 of the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) of Ministry of Finance, wherein the necessary instructions were passed on to 20 nationalized banks and to State Bank of India and their subsidiary banks for the purpose of fixation of pay of those ex- servicemen, who were re-appointed in such banks, makes the position clear that the complete emoluments drawn by the ex-servicemen before their release from the Armed Forces were required to be protected but not merely the “basic pay”. This Memorandum made it clear that the pay + dearness allowance earned by the ex-servicemen is needed to be protected. It is, therefore, clear that in the instant case, the State Bank of Hyderabad has faithfully carried out the instructions passed by the Department of Economic Affairs, (Banking Division), Ministry of Finance, on 28th January 1983, when it has protected the pay + dearness allowance drawn by the writ petitioner while he was in service of the Indian Army. I am not in a position to find any tenability behind the claim made by the writ petitioner. However, insofar as shortening the requisite length of service to be put in by the employees for earning promotion to the next higher category of Junior Management Grade Scale - I officers, it is asserted in the counter- affidavit that subject to a maximum of two years, weightage is available for such ex-servicemen, who have completed service in the proportion of one year for every five years of service. Hence, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 8th December 2009 ksld