JUDGMENT
S.N. Jha and B.N.P. Singh, JJ.
1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to payment of medical allowance to the officers and employees of the Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (for short, the Bank). The writ petition by the Association of Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers was filed against the decision of the Chairman of the Bank directing that fixed medical allowance shall be paid to the members of the Association until decision by the Equation Committee and the Government of India on the subject. The claim of the petitioner in sum and substance is that the officers and employees of the Bank stand on par with their counterparts of the sponsor Bank, namely, the State Bank of India and they are entitled to the same pay and allowances as admissible to them.
2. It appears that serveral writ petitions involving the dispute relating to ‘equal pay for equal work’ were filed including one in the Supreme Court being Writ Petition No. 132 of 1984. The Supreme Court by order dated 1 -9-1987 directed the Government of India to constitute a Natural Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal so constituted gave an award on 30-4-1990 effective from 1-9-1987, holding that the employees of the equivalent posts in different Gramin Banks are entitled to same pay and allowances including the medical allowance and other benefits with effect from 1-9-1987 to which the employees of the sponsor Bank are entitled. The award also contained a stipulation to constitute Equation Committee to find out the equivalence of posts in the Gramin Banks. On 8-1-1991 the Equation Committee, so constituted, submitted its report which was circulated by the Government of India on 22-2-1991. The Government of India in consulation with the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) accepted the report in terms of proviso to Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the Equation Committee recommended that the allowance and the benefits available under the bipartite settlement and the service regulations of the sponsor Bank be extended to the employees and officers of the concerned Gramin Banks. On 22-2-1991 the Government of India informed the Chairman and the Managing Director of the sponsor Banks, including the State Bank of India, to implement the award of the Tribunal taking into account the recommendation of the Equation Committee. The case of the petitioner is that in this background the decision to pay fixed amount of Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1000/- per annum (depending on the pay scales) is arbitrary. The respondent Bank has filed counter-affidavit dealing with the case of the petitioner.
4. When the case was taken up earlier Court observed that the impugned decision being interim in nature, the decision of the Government of India on the recommendation of the Equation Committee and the latest position should be brought on record by the Bank, The Bank has accordingly filed another counter-affidavit. In continuation of the earlier statements it has been stated that in accordance with the second proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and the decision of the Supreme Court dated 31-1-2001 in Civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999 the Central Government has determined the pay-scales of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in the manner indicated in the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) No. F. No. 7(5)795 -RRB dated 11-4-2001 effective from 1-4-2000. As per the decision, the pay-scales of the Regional Rural Bank employees, as on 1-4-2000, would become equal to that of their counterparts in commercial banks i.e. sponsor Bank. Without setting out other parts of the decision, suffice it to mention that the House Rent Allowance (HRA) and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) are now payable at the same rate as applicable to comparable employees of the sponsor banks with effect from the date of issue of the orders. As regards the Medical Allowance the letter dated 11-4-2001 states :
“As far as other allowances are concerned, individual sponsor banks shall negotiate the same with the respective RRB. The revised allowances shall be paid w.e.f. 1-4-2000. The ceiling on the payment shall, however, be as per the formula stated in (iii) above.”
It has further been stated that the State Bank of India communicated the decision in terms of the proviso to Section 17(i) of the Regional Rural Bank Act on the point of allowance vide its letter No. RRB/C/45 dated 25-10-2001, the relevant part of which runs as under:
“There shall be no change in the payment of other allowances not mentioned in the enclosed Annexure I & II till further instructions and shall be continued to be paid at the old rates/basic pay. Please advise RRBs sponsored by us in the Circle that in case any allowance other than those mentioned in NABARD circular NB. IDD. RRCBD. No. C 4559/316 (Gen)/92-93 dated the 20th March 1993 is being paid in the RRB, the same should be discontinued forthwith under advice to you.”
5. Having heard Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Bank we are of the view that the decision on the subject of pay and allowance has been taken on the basis of expert opinion at the highest level and the Court should not interfere in the matter. It may be recalled that the sipute was firstly considered by the National Industrial Tribunal constituted pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court and, later, by the Equation Committee constituted under the award. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that pay fixation depends on consideration of variety of factors and should be left to the experts for determination. Reference may be made to State of U. P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 and State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002} 6 SCC 72.
6. In this view of the matter the question as to whether the officers and employees of the Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank should be allowed medical allowance at par with their counterparts of the sponsor bank i.e. State Bank of India or fixed allowance has to be considered by the authorities themselves. Being conscious of the limitation, Shri R.N. Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly stated that the petitioner may be allowed to ventiate their grievance within the parameter of the aforesaid decision of the Government of India and the State Bank of India. The Court would accordingly refrain from going into the merit of the claim and, in stead, relegate the petitioner – Association to the departmental remedies in accordance with law.
7. With this observation the petition is disposed of.