V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. Ananta Grameena Bank Staff Association filed WP No. 12922 of 1992 praying for a declaration that the action of the respondents in equating the erstwhile senior Clerks of Anantha Grameena Bank with Clerks/Cashiers of Sponsor Banks by merging the categories of erstwhile Junior Clerks and Senior Clerks into one category of Clerk-cum-Cashiers and fitting them in the scale attached to the category of Clerks in Sponsor bank as arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction to the Bank is also sought to fit the cadre and pay scales to erstwhile Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers as on 22-2-1991 above the Clerk-cum-Cashiers in which the erstwhile Junior Clerks were also fitted by giving them the status, pay and other benefits on par with Special Assistants/Head Clerks in Sponsor Banks. WP No. 12926 of 1992 is filed by an employee of Anantha Grameena Bank, Anantapur, questioning the letter issued by Anantha Grameena Bank informing him that his promotion to the cadre of Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier stands nullified and that he is designated as Clerk-cum-Cashier as arbitrary. The questions raised in these writ petitions are common and hence they are being disposed of by this common order.
Facts in brief:
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are as follows. Anantha Grameena Bank was constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short, RRB Act). The Bank and the Government of India were responsible for determination of salary structure of the employees of the Bank. A large number of employees and employees’ associations filed writ petitions (civil) Nos.7149-50 of 1982 and 132 of 1984 under Article 32 of Constitution of India, claiming parity of pay scales and status on par with the employees of Sponsor Banks and other Nationalised Banks. The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute National Industrial Tribunal (NIT) which was duly constituted. The NIT, with Justice Obul Reddy as its Chairman, has submitted its Award inter alia that the question of giving parity of status and parity of pay scales cannot be decided by NIT and therefore the Government of India may take a decision. Accordingly, the Central Government referred the matter to National Bank for Rural Development (NABARD), which appointed a committee known as Equation Committee. Pursuant to the report of the Equation Committee, the Central Government issued instructions in L.R.No.l 1-3/90-R B(l) Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) dated 22-2-1991. The first respondent Bank also issued a circular being Cir.No.33/PD/ CST/90-91 dated 25-3-1991 inter alia equating the post of Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier as well as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier/ Junior Clerk-cum-Typist/Steno-Typists and Stenographers with the post of Clerk-cum-Cashiers in the Sponsor Banks. The circular also laid down procedure with regard to fitment in the revised pay scales. The weightage given to the employees/officers was as follows.
Sub-staff, Junior
Clerk-cum-Cashier, Field Supervisor and Area/Senior Managers
be placed at the minimum as under.
Those
who have less than 5 years of service as on the appointed date
First
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales
Those
who have completed 5 years of service as on the appointed date
Second
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales
Those
who have completed 10 years of service as on the appointed date
Third
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales
Employees namely
Sr.Clerkcum-Cashier and Officers-Branch Managers may
be placed at the minimum as under
Those
who have completed less than 3 years of service as on the appointed date
Second
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales
Those
who have completed 8 years of service but less than 6 years of service as on
the appointed date
Third
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales
Those
who have completed 6 years of service but less than 9 years of service as on
the appointed date
Fourth
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales
Those
who have completed 9 years of service as on the appointed date
Figth
stage in the Sponsor Bank Scales.
3. It was also made clear that if an employee comes under fitment in the higher stages on the basis of his existing pay plus D.A. being equated with equal or next higher stage than what was being drawn such higher fitment was also ensured. It was also made clear that separate guidelines in respect of each allowance will be issued in due course of time.
4. The petitioner-association challenged the action of the first respondent in issuing Circular dated 25-3-1991 merging the post of Senior Clerks-cum-Cashiers with Junior Clerks-cum-Cashiers mainly on the ground that the duties performed by the erstwhile Senior Clerks-cum-Cashiers before re-categorization are identical to the duties performed by Special Assistants/Head Clerks of the Sponsor Banks and hence equating the posts of Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier of Regional Rural Banks with the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier is discriminatory and illegal. In the affidavit petitioner states:
I submit that this action of the respondents has resulted in the following grievances of the Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers (a) the Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers got reverted to the cadre of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers and thus they have foregone the benefit of promotion which they have acquired; (b) they have lost the promotional chances to the higher cadre (officer) and now they are made to compete along with other Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers; (c) the Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers have suffered loss of status; (d) such of those Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers who were promoted from the category of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers after 1-9-1987 are denied the benefit of seniority also in the common pool after merger.
5. In the elaborate counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent-Anantha Grameena Bank, it is stated that even prior to the implementation of Award of NIT posts of Senior Clerks were created to fill up the gap between Branch Manager and Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier, that both the Senior “Clerks and Junior Clerks were performing similar functions and the functions performed by Senior Clerks-cum-Cashiers are not equal to the functions discharged by Special Assistants/Head Clerks in Sponsor Banks. It is also stated that in terms of guidelines issued by the Government of India through their Memo dated 22-2-1991 the cadre of Senior Clerks-cum-Cashiers was also abolished and by circular dated 20-3-1993 NABARD has given due weightage for seniority as per directions issued by the Government vide their Memo dated 22-2-1991.
Submissions of Counsel
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.S.K.V. Ramana Murthy, submits that the post of Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks were different cadre posts and therefore it is improper to merge them into one category for the purpose of equating these posts with corresponding posts in Sponsor Banks. Nextly, he contends that Senior Clerks in RRBs were discharging functions on par with Special Assistants/ Head Clerks of Sponsor Banks and hence they should have been equated in the post other than Clerk-cum-Cashiers in the Sponsor Bank. He also submits that Equation committee has recommended to give weightage for Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers in their fitment in Sponsor Bank and denial of the same benefit to the employees belonging to the cadre of Senior Clerks is discriminatory as unequals are treated equally. He submits that the circular issued by the Central Government is contrary to the recommendations made by NIT as well as Equation Committee.
7. Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that when the employees of the RRBs filed cases before the Supreme Court, the Central Government was directed to constitute NIT, The NIT conducted elaborate enquiry and passed award leaving these matters to the Central Government to decide. The Central Government appointed a committee. The committee gave ample opportunity to the employees, considered all the objections which are raised in these writ petitions and gave recommendations. When these recommendations are accepted by the Central Government and are being implemented by RRBs, the petitioners cannot turn around and take same pleas, which are already considered by the committee. He also would submit that Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks were performing same functions and Senior Clerks cannot be equated with the posts of Special Assistants/ Head Clerks in the Sponsor Banks. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19, Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 168, and South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Committee of S.M.G.B.Employees’ Union, .
Question for consideration
8. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the action of the respondents in merging the posts of Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks into one category for the purpose of equating those posts with the post of Clerk-cum-Cashiers in the Sponsor Banks is arbitrary and discriminatory ?
Findings
(i) Award of National Industrial Tribunal and Recommendation of Equation Committee
9. The employees of Regional Rural Banks filed cases before the Supreme Court seeking parity with employees of Sponsor Banks as regards scale of pay. By order dated 1-9-1987 the Apex Court directed the Government to constitute National Industrial Tribunal and referred the dispute to it. Accordingly, by Notification No. 235 dated 26-11-1987 the Government of India constituted National Industrial Tribunal under the Chairmanship of former Chief Justice of A.P.High Court, Justice S Obul Reddy referring the disputes relating to pay, salary and other allowances and benefits payable to employees of Regional Rural Banks in terms of pleadings of the parties in W.P.No. 7149-50/82 and 132/84 filed before the Supreme Court. The NIT gave its Award on 30-4-1990 to be effective from 1-9-1987. Paragraphs 4.428 and 4.429 of Award of NIT are relevant and reads as under.
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 the RRBs on 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 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 the RRBs with the sub-staff of sponsor banks. This Award is accordingly passed and it shall cover all the existing RRBs. The Award shall be given effect to from 1st day of September, 1987.
4.429. Whether the Officers and other employees of the RRBs should be constituted as a separate service or whether they should be merged with the cadre of officers and other employees in corresponding and comparable level of posts in sponsor banks is entirely a matter within the jurisdiction and competence of the Central Government and it is upto it to take such steps including amendment of the Act, as it may deem necessary. These are questions which are outside the realm of reference and therefore, I am not called upon to make suggestions or recommendations.
10. As the NIT left it to the decision of the Central Government regarding equation of posts the Government of India constituted Equation Committee on 5,101990 under the Chairmanship of Sri P. Kotaiah, Managing Director of NABARD. The Equation Committee submitted its report on 16-1-1991.
11. The Equation Committee inter alia noted that the preponderance of the duties performed by Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers were same as those performed by Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers, that number of branches of RRBs were having either Senior Clerk or Junior Clerk only and that in some of the States only one cadre of Senior Clerks were working. It was also observed by the Equation Committee that having regard to the fact that in Sponsor Banks there is no direct recruitment of Head Clerks/Special Assistants and hence Clerks were generally considered for promotion as Head Clerks/Special Assistants after a period of ten to fifteen years of service whereas in Regional Rural Banks Junior Clerks were eligible for promotion as Senior Clerks only after four years of service. Therefore, Equation Committee opined that Senior Clerks were not comparable with Head Clerks/Special Assistants of Sponsor Banks. It was further observed that the claim of associations of employees of RRBs that Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers were asked to work as Field Supervisors as well as Branch Managers is without any substance to give an edge to the claim for superior posts comparable with Special Assistants in Sponsor Banks. Therefore, a recommendation was made as under.
2.9.13. The committee, therefore, recommends that Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers be equated with the clerical cadre employees of the concerned Sponsor Banks. As the Sponsor Banks have a single common scale for all its clerical staff and also common seniority, the committee recommends that the Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers should be placed above the Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers in the common seniority lists of Clerks in RRBs. The committee has also taken note to provide a weightage for Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers in their fitment in the clerical Pay Scale of concerned Sponsor Banks.
12. The Government of India by their letter No. l1-3/90 RB(1) in Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, dated 22-2-1991 issued orders accepting the recommendations of the equations Committee dated 16-1-1991 inter alia equating posts of Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks together with posts of Clerks in the Sponsor Banks as noticed hereinabove.
(ii) Functional equality is basis
13. From the discussion thus far, two things would emerge. Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks were virtually doing the same work. Secondly, the post of Senior Clerks is not comparable with the post of Head Clerk/Special Assistant for Sponsor Banks which is a far superior post. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank, Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy the inter se seniority among Senior Clerks as well as Junior Clerks and the over all seniority was ordered to be fixed by placing Junior Clerks below Senior Clerks. This would safeguard the interest of Senior Clerks insofar as promotional chances are concerned and the complaint that Senior Clerks have lost their status cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that Senior Clerks never raised any objection before the Supreme Court or before the NIT or before the Equation Committee insofar as equating those posts with Junior Clerks is concerned. Their only complaint was that they should be equated with Head Clerks/ Special Assistants in the sponsored Banks, which was categorically not accepted by the Equation Committee. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it violates principles of natural justice must therefore be rejected.
Some Case law
14. Insofar as the law regarding merger of posts and merger of services and equation of posts is concerned, it is well-settled that functional equality or status equality though relevant do not by themselves give rise to a claim for pay parity. Similarly, even if the designation is same in two organisations, employees in one organisation cannot claim pay parity or status equality. These are matters for the experts and when once the committee of experts goes into these issues and its recommendations are accepted, ordinarily, these matters are not within the purview of the Courts’ scrutiny. In J.P.Chaurasia’s case (supra) it was held:
The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts, More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or scimitar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalent unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration
15. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B.Sharma (supra) a question fell for consideration as to whether the NIT had accepted the plea of principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The Apex Court considered the award of NIT and held the principle of equal pay for equal work was not accepted by NIT. The Apex Court placed reliance on Paragraph 4.422 and 4.428 and it was observed:
In view of the aforesaid conclusions of the Tribunal on the basis of evidence placed before it, the conclusion is irresistible that the Tribunal never applied the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and on the other hand was of the view that the 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 and for determining the parity, it left the matter to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary. We are, therefore, persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. Ramachandran, appearing for the appellant that while resolving the dispute of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, the tribunal did not apply the so-called principle of ‘equal pay for equal work and on the other hand applied the principle of parity with the officers of me respective sponsor banks.
The Supreme Court also observed:
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 V.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission, and such Expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of 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,
16. In South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Committee of S.M.G.B. Employees Union (supra) the Supreme Court considered the question whether the Award given by Justice Obul Reddy and accepted by the Government can be construed that pay scales of employees of Regional Rural Banks stood automatically altered as and when pay structure of the employees of commercial Banks gets revised. The Supreme Court referred to Section 17 of the RRB Act which enables the Central Government to determine the remuneration of officers and employees of RRBs and held that revision of pay structure of employees of RRBs could be made only after the Central Government exercises its powers under the provisions of the Act and determines the same.
The Supreme Court also adverted to the question whether employees of RRBs would be entitled to pay structure of the employees of the nationalised commercial banks and it was held that employees of RRBs would be entitled to claim parity with employees of nationalised commercial banks and that Union Government while exercising powers under Section 17 of the Act would be guided by the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. It was also held that the Government of India should take a decision as and when there is revision of pay structure of employees of commercial banks within reasonable time bearing in mind the bipartite settlement and conclusions reached by NIT.
Conclusion:
17. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, it is not possible to accept the submission of Ramana Murthy that NIT has recommended to equate the posts of Senior Clerks in the respondent-Bank with the posts of Special Assistants/Head Clerks in Sponsor Banks.
18. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and therefore accordingly dismissed.
