Reserve
Bank of India Vs. Reserve Bank of India Staff Officers Association &
Ors [1991] INSC 185 (9
August 1991)
Kania,
M.H. Kania, M.H. Sawant, P.B.
CITATION:
1992 AIR 485 1991 SCR (3) 460 1991 SCC (4) 132 JT 1991 (3) 579 1991 SCALE
(1)304
ACT:
Constitution
of India. 1950--Articles 14, 16--Non-local
& local bank officers of Reserve Bank at Gauhati--Certain incentives to nonlocal
officers--Whether discriminatory.
HEAD NOTE:
By a
letter dated December
9, 1983 certain
incentives and allowances were provided by the appellant to its offi- cers
posted at Gauhati who were not from the North-Eastern region. Those allowances
were generally known as special duty allowances and the main special duty
allowance com- prised 25% of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs.400 per
month.
By a
Memorandum issued by the appellant on April 11, 1985, an ad hoc increase in
salary was effected for non- local officers and an option was given to them
either to choose the ad hoc increase or the special duty allowances for the period
during which they were posted at Gauhati.
The
respondent demanded the extension of the said bene- fits to the local officers
by their letter dated May
10, 1985. When the
appellant-bank declined to allow the benefits to the local officers, the
respondent-association challenged the Memorandum dated April 11, 1985 in a writ
petition in the High Court, contending that all the officers of the
appellant-bank posted at Gauhati, whether they were from the North-Eastern
region or outside had to live in the same conditions and suffer from the same
hardships, and hence, if any allowance was given to the officers transferred
from outside to the Gauhati Office, the very same allowance should also be
given to the local officers posted at Gau- hati.
The
appellant bank averred in its counter that the scheme of ad hoc incentives was
introduced to tide over the problem of adequately staffing the Gauhati office;
that the non-local officers experienced difficulties in getting accommodation,
getting familiar with the language and so on, and some incentives had to be
given to them to mitigate the hardships experienced by them on transfer to Gauhati;
that the said incentives were temporary and because of the pecul- iar
circumstances 461 prevailing at the moment in. the North-Eastern region, which
was regarded as a difficult region.
The
High Court allowed the petition, holding that all officers at Gauhati suffered
from substantially the same hardship and that the local officers of the
appellant-bank at Gauhati were discriminated against and directed that they
must be given the same benefits as the non-local officers transferred to Gauhati.
Allowing
the appeal by special leave filed by the.bank, this Court,
HELD:
1.01.
The hardship and inconveniences suffered by an officer of the appellant-bank
who was transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North-Eastern region
would certainly be more acute than those suffered by local officers posted at Gauhati.
[463G-H]
1.02.
Some of the officers coming from the North-Eastern region may also face
considerable hardship when posted at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a
few such officers would not render the payment of special allowance, exclu- sively
to officers transferred from distant regions discrim- inatory and bad in law.
[464B-C]
1.03.
The Reserve Bank of India, is a banking institu- tion and if in the interest of
efficiency and proper work- ing, it bona fide took the decision to grant some
extra benefits to the non-local officers transferred to Gauhati with a view to maintain
efficient working of its unit at Gauhati, they cannot be treated as being
guilty of any unlawful discrimination. [464E-F]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3 107 of 1991.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 14.8. 1990 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule
No. 407 of 1985.
H.N.
Salve. K.S. Parihar and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
P.K. Goswami,
Kailash Vasdev and M.J. Paul for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. Special Ieave granted. Counsel
heard.
462
This is an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, by special leave. The contesting respondent, being
respondent No. 1, is an association of its officers at its Gauhati unit. The
respondent association (referred to hereinafter as "the respondent")
represents the interests of 45 officers belonging to Grades A to C employed in
the appellant bank at its unit at Gauhati. It appears from the affidavit filed
on behalf of the appellant that there was difficulty in per- suading officers
of the appellant posted outside the North- Eastern region to accept transfers
to the unit of the appel- lant in the North-Eastern part of the country which
unit was located at Gauhati in Assam. It also emerges from the record that the Gauhati
station was regarded as a hardship station by the officers who were transferred
to the Gauhati unit from other regions of the country. The Government of India
found a similar difficulty in persuading its officers to accept postings in the
NorthEastern region and they were given substantial incentives to accept
transfers to the North-Eastern region. We are not here concerned directly with
the actual benefits granted by the Government of India but what is material is
that such benefits had to be given by the Government of India. By a letter
dated December 9, 1983, certain incentives and allowances
were provided by the appellant to its officers posted at Gauhati who were not
from the North-Eastern regions. Those allowances were gener- ally known as
special duty allowances. We are not much concerned with the details as to how
the special duty allow- ances were calculated but the main special duty
allowance basically comprised 25% of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs.400
per month. These allowances were also known as special compensatory allowances
or remote locality allow- ances. By a Memorandum issued by the appellant on
April 11, 1985, an adhoc increase in salary was effected for non-local officers
and an option was given to them either to choose the adhoc increase or the
special duty allowances for the period during which they were posted at Gauhati.
The re- spondent demanded the extension of the said benefit to the local
officers by its letter dated May 10, 1985.
We may mention here that the local officers who were posted at the Gauhati did
get an extra allowance in addition to their salaries but it was considerably
smaller than the main compensatory allowance paid to the officers from outside
the NorthEastern region who were transferred to Gauhati. Certain other benefits
were also allowed to non-local officers transferred to Gauhati but there is no
need to refer to them in detail. The appellant declined to allow the same
allow- ances to local officers posted at Gauhati as were given to the officers
from other regions transferred to Gauhati as stated earlier. It is this
decision which gave rise to the writ petition from the decision in which this
appeal arises.
463 It
was the contention of the respondent before the Gauhati High Court that all the
officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati, whether they were from the
North- Eastern region or outside had to live in the same conditions and suffer
from the same hardships, and hence, if any allow- ance was given to the
officers transferred from outside to the Gauhati office, the very same
allowance should also be given to the local officers posted at Gauhati. In the coun-
ter filed in the High Court by the appellant bank, the Deputy Chief Officer of
the appellant bank averted that the hardships faced by the non-local officers
are greater than those faced by the local officers. The scheme of adhoc
incentives was introduced to tide 'over the problem of adequately staffing the Gauhati
office. Non-local officers experienced difficulties in getting accommodation,
getting familiar with the language and so on, and some incentives had to be
given to them to mitigate the hardships experi- enced by them on transfer to Gauhati.
It was clarified that the said incentives were temporary and because of the pecu-
lier circumstances prevailing at the moment in the North- Eastern region which
was regarded as a difficult region. It was accepted that considerable
difficulties would have to be suffered by the officers posted there who hailed
from places outside the NorthEastern region. The contention of the appellant
bank failed to find favour with the High Court which took the view that all
officers at Gauhati suffered from substantially the same hardship and it
pointed out that, for example, even officers from outside from Tripura who were
posted at Gauhati would suffer almost the same degree of hardship as officers
transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North-Eastern regions
although Tripu- ra was in the North-Eastern region. The High Court took the
view that the local officers of the appellant bank, Gauhati were discriminated
against and directed that they must be given the same benefits as the non-local
officers trans- ferred to Gauhati.
It is
the correctness of the view taken by the High Court which is sought to be
impugned before us in this appeal. We are of the opinion that the High Court
was, with respect, in error in taking the view that officers from the
North-Eastern region who were posted at Gauhati. either on transfer or
otherwise, sufferred the same hardships as officers from other regions
transferred to Gauhati. The hardship and inconvenience sufferred by an officer
of the appellant bank who was transferred to Gauhati from regions other than
the North-Eastern region, would certainly be more acute than those suffered by
local officers posted at Gau- hati. His mother tongue might completely be
different in speech and, even as far as the script is concerned, from the 464
language used by the local people at Gauhati. He and his family members would,
therefore. find it very difficult to communicate freely with the local people.
His children might find it difficult to get admission to a school and pursue
their education at Gauhati. They would be unfamiliar with the surroundings and
the customs of the people. The hard- ships faced by an officer say from the
Western or Southern regions of India or North India posted at Gauhati would be
qualitatively as well as quantitatively greater than the hardships faced by the
local officers posted at Gauhati. It may be that some of the officers coming
from the North- Eastern region may also face considerable hardships when posted
at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a few such officers would not
render the payment of special allow- ance, exclusively to officers transferred
from distant regions discriminatory and bad in law. The High Court was,
therefore, not justified in coming to the conclusion that all the officers of
the appellant bank posted at Gauhati sufferred from the same degree of
hardship. A person trans- ferred from outside the North-Eastern region to Gauhati
would normally have to face more severe difficulties than an officer from the
North-Eastern region posted in Gauhati or, at the least, the appellant bank
could reasonably take that view. Moreover, as pointed out by the appellant bank
in the counter that they were finding it difficult to persuade their officers
from outside to accept transfers to Gauhati and it is common knowledge that an
office of a large bank cannot be run efficiently by officers a large number of
whom have been posted there by transfers against their will and under the
threat of disciplinary action. The work done by them could hardly be expected
to be satisfactory. After all, the appellant, the Reserve Bank of India, is a
banking institution and if in the interest of efficiency and proper working it
bona fide took the decision, in the circumstances set out earlier, to grant
some extra benefits to the non- local officers transferred to Gauhati with a
view to main- tain efficient working of its unit at Gauhati, in our opin- ion,
they cannot be treated as being guilty of any unlawful discrimination.
In the
result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The writ
petition filed by respond- ent No. 1 is dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs throughout.
V.P.R.
Appeal allowed.
Back