MAJOR KURIAN THOMAS Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order/communication dated November 30, 1987/ December 9, 1987, whereby the respondent no. 1 - Bank has drastically reduced the basic pay and allowances of the petitioner and further directed to initiate the action to recover with retrospective effect the difference between the pay received by the petitioner and refixed pay by the impugned order, which is equivalent to almost half of the total salary earned by him ever since he joined the Bank in 1985. He has further prayed for a direction to be given to the respondent no. 1 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 49,606. 00 unlawfully withheld from his salary since December 1987. The petitioner has also sought an injunction restraining the respondents from refixing his salary on the basis of the Circular issued by the respondent no. 2, on June 15, 1987. The respondent no. 2 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance. While admitting the writ petition, the ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) was granted, as a result of which the respondent no. 1 was restrained from effecting any recoveries from the petitioner's salary on the basis of the refixation effected by the impugned order/communication dated november 30, 1987/december 9, 1987. Now before we look at the relevant record, guidelines7circulars of 1983 and 1987 and consider the challenge made, it would be, perhaps, better just to state briefly what the credentials of the petitioner are, what are the facts and grounds for this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a former officer of the Indian Army. He joined Army as a non-Comissioned Officer in 1953. In 1964, he received commission as Second Lieutenant. The petitioner retired from the Armed Forces after rendering 22 years of commuted commissioned service on May 23, 1979. He was granted basic pension of Rs. 750. 00 per month and the dearness allowance at the prevailing rates. The petitioner claims to have commuted part of his pension for resettling himself. The commuted pension amounted to rs. 4287- per month plus dearness allowance. The last drawn basic pay in the Armed Forces was Rs. 15007- plus Rs. 370/- dearness allowance in 1979. After retirement, the petitioner took up various senior jobs with different private employers abroad and in India intermittently. The Banking Services recruitment Board published an advertisement on March 13, 1984 for common open recruitment to the posts of Security Officers in three different nationalized Banks including the first respondent. The pay scale prescribed in the advertisement was Rs. 700. 00 to Rs. 1800. 00 being the Junior Management Grade Scale-1. In so far as the eligibility for the posts was concerned, the advertisement prescribed that the candidate must be a graduate, and an officer with five years service not below the rank of subedar in the Army, or equivalent ranks in the navy, Air Force or the Police Force. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post. He was duly selected by the Banking Services Recruitment Board and accordingly received formal offer of employment on January 18,1985 from the first respondent. In the letter of appointment, he was informed that he would draw starting pay of Rs. 700. 00per month in Rs. 700-1800 pay scale. His starting gross salary came to Rs. 1761. 00. Bythe time he joined the Bank on February 27, 1985, he was entitled to receive from the Army Rs. 750. 00 as pension and the dearness relief allowances payable on his pension at Rs. 500. 00 per month, total being Rs. 1250. 00. Thus, in the respondent Bank, the petitioner earned a gross salary of Rs. 17617- in addition to what he would earn as pension i. e. Rs. 1250. 00 making about Rs. 3011. 00 in all. The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent as Security Officer on February 27, 1985. From March till October, 1985 he was paid full salary as above as per the letter of appointment.

(3.) THE second respondent, vide its guidelines circulated on January 28, 1983, had directed that for the ex-servicemen who joined nationalized Banks after september 1978, protection of pay should be granted on the basis of only basic pay earned by them prior to retirement instead of protecting total emoluments, i. e. pay plus dearness allowance. The aforesaid guidelines issued in 1983 were in force at the time when the petitioner joined the first respondent. In pursuance to the said guidelines, the respondent no. 1 - Bank issued a Circular dated July 16, 1985 in respect of fixation of pay of the ex-servicemen reemployed in the Banks. In the said Circular, three classes of the ex-servicemen joining Banks from time to time were mentioned. However, we are concerned with the class of ex-servicemen employed by the Bank and who joined the bank on or after January 25, 1983. The basis of fixing the pay of the ex-servicemen employed by the Bank on or after January 25, 1983 in clauses 4 (c) and 5 of the said circular dated July 16, 1985 was provided as under: