D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr vs Sudhir Thakore 1 6 D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr.
vs Sudhir Thakore DATE OF ORDER
: 4th December 2013.
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Narpat Singh for the petitioneRs.Mr.Jagdish Vyas for non-petitioner.
<><><> Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that no case for proceeding against the non-petitioner in the contempt jurisdiction for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the Court is made out.
The background aspects of the matter are as follows: The petitioner is an association of the persons working as Branch Managers in Marwar Gramin Bank.
The petitioner-association preferred a writ petition (CWP No.1394/1980) on the grievance of its members against the order dated 29.04.1980 whereby, they were allegedly put in a lower position, were equated with the other cadre, and their pay structure was changed.
By the order dated 01.10.1997, the said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the following terms:- “(i) That Annex.
2 equating the Branch Managers with the pay scale and status of the Field Officers/Accountants and putting them into same status is not justified and is quashed to that extent that it is held that Branch Mangers are higher in status and emoluments than the Field Officers/Accountants who have been equatted with the Block Development OfficeRs.D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr vs Sudhir Thakore 2 (ii) That from the very beginning, the Branch Managers were getting Rs.80/- per month more than the Field Officers/Accountants when scale of Branch Managers of Rs.700-1250 without D.A.and that of the Field Officer was of Rs.300-680 with dearness allowance.
There was a difference of Rs.80/- in pay.
The Branch Managers were getting higher emoluments to the extent of a total Rs.80/- per month than the Field OfficeRs.(iii) That pay has been revised so far as the Field Officers/Accountants are concerned in the scale of Rs.650- 1270 with dearness allowance equivalent to the revised scale of Block Development Officers plus dearness allowance.
The same has been made applicable to the Branch ManageRs.The total difference of pay of Rs.80/- per month between pay of the Branch Managers and the Field Officers would always remain in froce i.e.Branch Manager shall get Rs.80/- per month higher than the Field Officers/Accountants which was the difference of pay before the revision of pay, w.e.f.the revision has been allowed to the Field Officers/Accountants.
(iv) That Branch Managers shall be entitled to Rs.80/- per month from the date of revision of pay which was paid to the Field Officers/Accountants till 30th August, 1987.”
.
Dissatisfied with the above, both, the writ-petitioners as also the respondents of the writ petition, preferred intra-court appeals being SAW Nos.1225/1997 and 393/1998 respectively, which were considered together and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 29.03.2006.
A comprehension of the judgment passed by the Division Bench makes out that in essence, the claim of the writ-petitioners for being entitled to the pay scale higher than that of BDO was not countenanced.
The Division Bench, in its concluding paragraphs of the judgment dated 29.03.2006 observed and ordered as under:- “Thus, prior to 1.9.1987, as per provisions of second proviso to Section 17 (1) of the RRB Act, 1976, so far as applicability of pay scale is concerned, it extended that such parity shall be in respect of all the matters including the allowances and benefits.
It cannot be restricted only to some allowances and some benefits.
In other words, the Branch Managers of Regional Rural Banks in particular State were entitled to draw pay in the pay scale applicable to BDO (Ordinary Level) with all allowances and other benefits applicable to BDO in such State.
D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr vs Sudhir Thakore 3 Mr.Singhvi for the employees sought to urge that the Tribunal has found that the posts under the Government are not comparable and the duties of Branch Manager were found to be more onerous than the duties of BDO.
The Branch Manager ought to have been fixed in the corresponding pay scale of Rs.750-1350 as per the Revised Pay Scale from time to time and not on the basis of lower pay scale.
However, this contention does not impress us.
We have noticed above that the Tribunal was alive to this problem and also alive to the problem that the pay scale and status of BDO and that it does not provide viable base for removing anomalies.
Yet in the existing facts and circumstances while granting pay parity with sponsoring bank employees, it restricted such benefits w.e.f.1.9.1987.
We are of the opinion that prior to that date, the Branch Managers are entitled to draw their salary in the pay scales applicable to BDO (ordinary or lower scale) as noticed by us above, subject of couRs.to the protection of pay which was already drawn by them.
The two separate pay scales were operating in Rajasthan for different category of BDO vide notification dtd.
19.10.1982.
The lower pay scale applicable to BDO shall be given to the Branch Manager with full benefits and w.e.f.19.10.1982 benefit of pay scale of Rs.1000-1860 shall be extended with full benefits.
Benefit of revision in pay scale, if any which may have taken place during this period in the pay scale of BDO shall also be extended to the Branch Managers w.e.f.the date such revision of pay scale had been made applicable in the State of Rajasthan.
The appeals are accordingly, disposed of in terms as stated above.
No order as to costs.”
.
There is not much of the contest on the point that the benefits that were to be given to the members of the petitioner-association w.e.f.19.10.1982 as regards the pay scale, as also the revision of pay scale, have been granted by the employer-bank.
The dispute now remains essentially as regards the observations made by the Division Bench in the above referred order for “protection of pay which was already drawn”.
by the manageRs.It appears that looking to the subject matter of the litigation and the issues involved, which posed too much of intricacies; and, in order to deal with several representations, the Chairman of employer Bank referred the matter to the Board of Directors under his memorandum dated 26.12.2011, while taking note of the suggestions on behalf of the petitioner that the pay to be protected, as referred to D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr vs Sudhir Thakore 4 in the order of the Court, was the basic pay alone.
The Board of Directors found that the issues involved legal, technical and regulatory aspects; and called for in-depth examination with reference to the developments that had taken place over a number of yeaRs.Thereafter, the Board of Directors proceeded to form a committee of five persons, comprising of two members from the Management of the bank, two members from the Union/Association of ManageRs.and one member from the Law Department of the Sponsor Bank.
The committee so formed held several meetings and then, forwarded all the proceedings of the meetings to the Board of DirectORS.who, in turn, took the decision in its meeting dated 23.11.2012, as under:- “(अ) म नन य उच नय य लय क ननरय द न क 29.03.2006 क अनस र अध क ररय क वतन स र!करर उपयक म मल म कई व% ननक एव ननय मक पहल( ह)न त यह म मल क फ+ पर न ह)न क क रर इसक+ ज.
कर इसक) सरल!क/त ककय ज ए त कक इस पर नन शक मण3ल वव र कर सक अत: नन शक मण3ल क+ द न क 26 द सम6र 2011 क+ 6%ठक म8 ननरय ललय गय कक इस हत एक सलमनत क गठन ककय ज ऐ। इस पक र सलमनत गदठत क+ गई और सलमनत न इस स र म8 अपन ररप)र प तत क+ ह% म मल क) ज.
कर सरल 6न न म सलमनत न ज) य)ग न द य ह% इसक ललए नन शक मण3ल सलमनत क+ पशस करत ह% । सलमनत क+ ररप)र म8 प तत तथय पर वव र करन क 6 नन शक मण3ल न यह प य ह% कक- 1.
म मल म8 नय य लय द र द य गय ननरय म8 उललखEत वतन क सरकर क+ वय खय (Protection of Pay/Emoluments) अपककत ह% । 2.
प य)जक 6Jक क ववध ववर ग द र इसक+ वय खय Protection of Emoluments क+ गई ह% ज6कक अध क र! सगठन पक क आगह ह% कक Protection of Basic Pay म न ज य। 3.
स म नयत: Pay क त तपय Basic Pay ह)त ह% ववलरनन शब क)ष व Bank Service Regulation म8 र Pay क मतल6 Basic Pay ह! ह% अत: Pay स त तपय Basic Pay स सहमत ह% ककनत स लरत पकरर म8 यह एक ववशष पररस नत ह% यह.
सजस Pay क ववव न ककय ज रह ह% उस समय Pay व Emoluments म8 क)ई अनतर नह! अत: य नह! ह% ।" Now, with reference to the regulations of the bank dealing with the service conditions, the petitioner seeks to contend that the Board of Directors has not punctually and properly carried out the requirements of the directions for pay protection; and the members D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr vs Sudhir Thakore 5 of the petitioner-association are being prejudiced when their pay scale has not been protected.
On the other hand, the non-petitioner seeks to contend that on a comprehensive examination of the subject matter of the litigation, as also the findings of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgment dated 29.03.2006, the concept of protection of pay, in the given context, would only mean the emoluments received by the Branch Managers at the given point of time; and, on account of fixation in the pay scales of BDO (ordinary or lower scale).the emoluments as were being received, were not be reduced.
It is sought to be submitted that the claim for protection of basic pay would not even arise in the matter in view of the other findings of the Division Bench in the order dated 29.03.2006; and therefore, in its true meaning and purport, ‘protection of pay’ in the present case only means not causing prejudice to the Managers as regards the emoluments that were being received by them after giving the pay scales applicable to BDO (ordinary or lower scale).Taking note of the subject matter of the litigation, the stand of the respective parties, and the judgment dated 29.03.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Court, the decision dated 23.11.2012 as taken by the Board of Directors of the employer Bank cannot be said to be that of willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court or an attempt to defy or over-reach the process of law.
In the given context, the employer Bank has proceeded to allow the protection to the extent it was considered available with reference to the other findings, particularly when the Court upheld D.B.Civil Writ Contempt Petition No.133/2013 The M.G.B.OfficeRs.Association & Anr vs Sudhir Thakore 6 the position that the Branch Managers would be entitled to draw their salaries as had been drawn by the BDO (ordinary or lower scale).For no case of willful disobedience being made out, there appears no reason to proceed against the non-petitioner in contempt jurisdiction.
Hence, the contempt petition is required to be dismissed.
However, we make it clear that if any grievance remains yet as regards the illegality of the decision dated 23.11.2012, it shall be permissible for the petitioner to take recouRs.to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
In other words, we have only declined to entertain the matter in contempt jurisdiction for no case of willful and deliberate disobedience being made out; and the couRs.of substantive challenge to the decision dated 23.11.2012 is always open for the petitioner Subject to the observations foregoing, this contempt petition stands dismissed.
Notices are discharged.
(VIJAY BISHNOI).J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI).J.
sudhir//