Allowed

State Bank of Patiala & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh

Delhi HC20 Jan 2016LPA/67/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against an order quashing the bank's fixation of the petitioner's basic pay at a lower amount. The court held the Single Judge correct, directing fixation at Rs. 6045/- in terms of circulars and directing payment of arrears with interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed basic pay fixation of Rs. 5460/-; directed to fix pay at Rs. 6045/-; directed to pay consequential arrears with 6% interest within six weeks.

State Bank of Patiala & Anr. Vs Kanwar Pal Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

The writ petitioner has served in the Indian Army. He apparently applied for re-employment as Watchman with the appellant/bank;his applicationwas acceptedand he was appointedon 24.11.2003. The appellant's prevailing Circulars ensured pay protection for periods of service of its employees who had earlier functioned with the Central Government or its agencies or any other such public employment. Invoking those Circulars, the petitioner contendedthat contrary to the pay at which he was entitledto, i.e., ?6181.90, his pay was fixed at ?5460/-. The learned Single Judge noticed the contentions of the Bank that the pay fixation was in order because at the time the respondent entered its employment,the 7"^ Bipartite Agreement had ended and the 8"^ Bipartite Agreement as well as the pay scales agreed under,its regime had not yet come into force. The Single Judge rejected the contention in the following terms: -

¶3

"5. This Court is unable to agree with this submission. A perusal of the said letter wouldshow that itfixed the basicpay at Rs.5460/- per month and special allowance Rs.255/-. It is also not clear that how the amount of Rs.5460/- has been arrived at since the starting point should have been Rs.4020/which was the last basic pay drawn by the petitioner while in the Army. From the chart showing the revised pay scales (which is at Page 41 Annexure P-8) as against the pay scale of Rs.4040/- the revised basic pay would be Rs.6045/-. The dearness allowance payable against this revised basic pay has been indicated in separate columns in the same chart. It is clear therefore that the respondent Bank was required tofix the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 6045/- and work out on that basis the dearness allowance and other amounts as on 24th November 2003, and further calculate thefuture increments on that basis. There is no scope for any confusion on this score.

¶4

Accordingly, the letter dated 28th February 2006 and the subsequentletterdated3rdMay 2008 issuedby the respondent fixing the basic pay as Rs.5460/- per month are hereby quashed. It is directedthat the basic monthlypay as on 24th November 2003 will standfixed at Rs.6045/- in terms of the Circular dated 18th March 1994 read with the chart of the revisedbasicpay at AnnexureP-8 (page 41 of the paper book). The dearness allowanceand special allowancewill be worked out on that basis. All incrementsthereafterwill be accordingly worked out. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from today. The consequentialarrears be paid to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks thereafter togetherinterestto 6% per annumfrom 24'^ November2003 till the date of payment. Any amount recoveredpursuant to the letter dated 28th February 2006 will be refunded to the petitioner within the same period. "

¶5

It is contendedby Mr. I.S. Alagh, learnedcounsel for the Bank, that the impugned order is in error since the essentialpay protection was in fact afforded to the petitioner. He submitted that as against Rs.6006/-which was the last pay drawn by the petitionerinthe Indian Army, his revised pay (basic) would work out as Rs.5460/- as on 24.11.2003. The subsequent increments were thereafter at Rs.6045/on 01.11.2006 and Rs.6280/- on 01.11.2007.

¶6

This Court is unpersuaded with the appellant's submissions. The Single Judge elaborately considered the Bank's contentions as well as its arguments that the refixation was in terms of the Circulars governing the issue. Learned counsel had argued before this Court that allowing the impugned order to stand would mean that other situated like the petitioner, i.e., in the grade of Watchman,would also

¶7

lay claim to higher pay. We do not agree. The pay fixation orders which seek to protect public employmentare an individualexercise, governedby the peculiarcircumstancesof each case.

¶8

We are of the opinionthatthere is no infinnitywith the orderof the Single Judge; the appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. The arrearspayableto the respondentshallbe paidto him within six weeks from today.

¶9

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶10

DEEPA SHARMA, J

¶11

JANUARY 20, 2016 IvikasI

State Bank of Patiala & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of Patiala & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Visionaire India Vs M/S Ibm India Pvt. Ltd.

Rakshvir Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Usha Dua & Ors.

Rakshvir Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Narinder Kumar Dua & Ors.

M./S. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Meena Aggarwal Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Malabar Coastal Holdings LLP Vs Saurashtra Cements Limited and Ors.