CANARA BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION REGD Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the first petitioner is an Association of Canara Bank Officers represented by its Vice-President, while the other petitioners are working in that Bank. The petition is filed solely against Canara Bank, the respondent herein (hereinafter called as "bank" for the sake of brevity) Clauses 4 and 5 of the Circular dated 25.4.1989 bearing No.138/89 are in challenge in this petition. The first two clauses of the said Circular suggests that the Officers in Middle Management Grade Scale II and above and officers in Junior Management Grade Scale I would be eligible for quarters and such eligibility would be subject to clauses 4 and 5, which clauses are impugned in this petition. Clause 4 and 5 of the circular dated 25.4.1989 provide as under:

(2.) THE petitioners in their petition have pointed out that the bank, for the last thirty years, has been providing quarters for its Officers subject to certain rental limits in selected places and now the said facilities have been extended to all the places and to all the officers and in case of an officer who owns the flat and himself occupies it, such officer was entitled to rent reimbursement subject to the limits calculated by the bank. THE petitioners have confined the writ petition only to Junior Management Grade Scale I and Middle Management Grade Scales II and III also. It is pointed out by giving illustrations that in case of Junior Management Grade Scale I Officer, Middle Management Grade Scale II Officer and Middle Management Grade Scale III Officer, such Officers were entitled to stay in the quarters for which the rent limits were Rs.1,050, Rs.1,400 and Rs.1,400 respectively and if they are not provided with the quarters, they could be paid the House Tent Allowance only between Rs.275 p.m. and Rs.500 p.m. By way of examples, it has been pointed out in the petition that one Thiru T.R. Ekanathan, who represented the first petitioner, who was staying in his own flat and was getting the monthly rental reimbursement of Rs.1,400 was deprived of that rental reimbursement because of these clauses. So also in the case of other three writ petitioners, who owned their own flats and had rented them out, were refused the facility of the bank quarters and were made to suffer financially on that count. THE petitioners plead that the refusal of the facility of the bank quarters, holding them to be ineligible for the same, merely because they owned their own house in the same city or town, where they were working, would be arbitrary and discriminatory and clauses 4 and 5, which authorises the bank to take such steps, are invalid being contrary to Art.14 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out in the writ petition that in the beginning, there was a Circular dated 1.3.1986 which suggests that there was a Scheme introduce by the Bank in the year 1978 to take on lease the officers" houses and to allot the said houses to the owner or other officers in lieu of Bank's quarters. However, this policy was discontinued owing to the instructions from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India whereby such officer, who owns a house either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent children at the place of posting, was entitled to only House Rent Allowance and was not entitled to be provided with the bank quarters. It was pleaded in the petition that even this Circular was challenged in the Calcutta High Court and was stayed by the same. THE petitioners further pleaded that on the backdrop of the Circular dated 1.3.1986, the impugned Circular 25.4.1989, which was discriminatory and illegal, was brought in without prior consultation of the Reserve Bank of India and the approval of the Central Government and without amending the service regulations as per Sec.19 of the Central Act V of 1970. It is also argued that the Circular is not in keeping with the Board's Resolution as there is no scope for the discretion in the matter of allotment of quarters to such Officers.

(3.) ON the backdrop of these rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the challenge of unreasonableness and arbitrariness to the Circular, is in any way justified.