Disposed

A.Ramanathan, v. the Chairman and Managing

Madras HC19 Oct 2016WP/4654/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by ex-servicemen employees of Indian Bank seeking equal pay with junior armed guards. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the bank to decide based on an Indian Banks' Association circular.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file fresh representation; direction to respondent to consider it in light of IBA circular and pass orders.

A.Ramanathan, Vs the Chairman and Managing — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.10.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.4654 of 2014

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.A.Ramanathan
2.R.Ramesh
3.S.Aron
4.S.Rozario
5.Z.Syed Junaith Ahamed
6.V.Ramesh Kumar
7.N.Mahendiran
8.G.Muruganantham
9.K.Ramachandran
10.A.Jaganatha Raja
11.C.R.Soundararajan
12.V.Kubendran
13.G.Muthuselvan
14.S.Sekar
15.S.Sudalai Veerapandian
16.D.Aron
17.A.Manoharan
18.M.K.Tamil Selvan
19.S.Govindaraju
20.V.Ezhumalai
21.K.Subramanian
22.K.Ravichandran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
2.The Executive Director,
Indian Bank, Corporate Office,
254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. ... Respondents

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

3 The General Manager(HRM) Indian bank, Corporate Office, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapattah, Chennai 600 014

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 3 respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 02.07.2012 and to pay the equal remuneration between the same cadre and armed guards for work of similar nature from the date of appointment.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Nithysh Sekhar For respondents : Mrs.Reta Chandrasekar for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 02.07.2012 and to pay the equal remuneration between the same cadre and Armed Guards for work of similar nature from the date of appointment.

¶14

2-1.It is stated that the petitioners are Ex-service Men and after retiring from the Indian Military Service, the petitioners have applied for the post of “Peon-cum-Armed Guard” with the respondents-Bank through Ex-service Men Employment Office. After completion of the recruitment process, the petitioners have been appointed to the said post at various places across the State of Tamil Nadu, in the middle of the year 2011 on different dates. Some of the petitioners are working within the Chennai City limit, including the Indian Bank's Corporate Office.

¶15

2-2.As per the appointment order issued by the respondents, Basic Pay is fixed at Rs.5,850/- per month, because the petitioners retired from the Army prior to 01.01.2006, at that time the 5^th Pay Commission was in force. Recently, the respondent-Bank recruited new Armed Guards and gave the appointment order to the following persons_

¶16

(i)R.Deenadayalan, SR.No.4240937 (ii)M.Jesu, SR.No.42355 (iii)R.Jesuraj (iv)P.Srinivasan, SR.No.42335 (v)M.Nagarajan, SR.No.42323

¶17

The respondent-Bank fixed their Basic Pay at Rs.11,750/- per month. It is stated by the petitioner that the said persons are very junior to the petitioners and retired from the Army service

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

after 01.01.2006 and they have been covered by the 6^th Pay Commission. Now, the petitioners and the said newly recruited persons are working in the same cadre with similar nature of work under the respondents at the different branches; but they are getting more salary around Rs.6,000/-, than the petitioners under the heads of Basic Pay only. Hence, the petitioners have made representation to the respondents on 02.07.2012; but, no proper reply was received by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.

¶20

3.When the matter is taken up consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank produced a Circular dated 30.01.2014, issued by the Indian Banks' Association, vide No./HR&IR/CIR/2013-14/589/8764, and submitted that the respondent-Bank is prepared to consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the said Circular.

¶21

4.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents-Bank, this Court directs the petitioners to give a fresh representation to the 1^st respondent with regard to fixation of their pay, along with a copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the same in the light of the above said Circular, dated 30.01.2014, and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶22

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

ssv

¶28

¶29

1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2.The Executive Director, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

¶32

3 The General Manager(HRM) Indian bank, Corporate Office, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapattah, Chennai 600 014

¶33

+1cc to Mr.Aiyar and Dolia, Advocate, S.R.No.59039 +2cc to Mr.C. Nithysh Sekar, Advocate, S.R.No.59233

¶34

TRM(CO) md(11/11/2016) W.P.No.4654 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Ramanathan, v. the Chairman and Managing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramanathan, v. the Chairman and Managing

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

P.Malles Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R.Sathyakumar Vs Government of Tamilnadu

P.Shankar Vs Government of Tamilnadu

M.Mohamed Ali Vs The Principal Secretary to

L.Sathiyaraj, Vs the Director General of Police

D.Vani @ Janaki Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board