JAGANNATH KRISHNA ATHAWALE Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the employment of the respondent Bank in the year 1941 as a clerk. On Jan. 1, 1970 the petitioner was promoted as a Special Assistant and worked in that capacity for about 11 months. The petitioner was appointed as an Officer on July 1, 1971 after being selected for that post. The petitioner complains that there was reduction of Rs. 114.83 in his total monthly emoluments on being promoted as an Officer in Grade 'D'. The petitioner made representation to the Bank on Feb. 12, 1973 and on several occasions thereafter, but failed to get any relief. The petitioner retired from employment in Jan. 1984 and claims that he had received the final advice from the Bank on March 7, 1984 communicating that his request to revise fitment on promotion in the officer's cadre on July 1, 1971 cannot be acceded to. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the protection of emoluments him prior to July 1, 1971 and conduct of the Bank in reducing drawn by the con-his total emoluments by Rs. 114.83 per month is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to pay to the petitioner all arrears of pay at the rate of Rs. 114.83 per month from July 1, 1971 till Jan. 1984.

(2.) 1n answer to the petition, the respondent Bank has filed return dated Dec. 3, 1984 sworn by Shared chandra Shankarrao Vanikar, Chief Manager of Personnel Department of the Bank. The Bank points out that on Jan. 1, 1970 the duty of Special Assistant was assigned to the petitioner in peculiar circumstances. The Bank points out that sometime in the year 1970 the Federation of Bank of India Staff Unions, which represents an overall majority of workmen, raised the demand for creation of a category of Special Assistants. The management of the Bank at the relevant time was eager to promote clerks to the cadre of officers and therefore the management was insisting to complete the procedure for selection before writ on of the cadre of Special. Assistants to avoid creation of anomalous situation. Accordingly, notice dated Aug. 8, 1970 was put up inviting applications for promotion from clerical to the officer's cadre. Inspite of that, the Federation persisted in its demand for creation of category of Special Assistants before promotion and after protracted negotiations a detailed agreed scheme was worked out by the Federation and the Bank management. The agreed scheme, inter alia, provided that the Special Assistant would be posted at once, but if any clerk, who is assigned the work of Special Assistant immediately upon implementation of the terms, is subsequently selected for promotion to the officer's cadre in terms of the Bank's notice dated Aug. 8, 1970, then his basic pay in the scales of pay as an officer will be fixed on the basis of his pay and allowance as a clerk only and special allowance received by him as a Special Assistant immediately prior to his promotion will not be taken into consideration. The return further recites that in pursuance of this agreement, the Employees Union issued a circular to all its clerks conveying the agreement between the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Special Assistant in pursuance of this agreement though he had already applied for being promoted as an officer in pursuance of notice dated Aug. 8, 1970. As the petitioner was posted as Special Assistant he was paid an additional amount of Rs. 114.83, consisting of Rs. 91/- as special pay and the balance as the additional dearness allowance. The Bank claims that in view of this agreement between the Management and the Union the petitioner *is not entitled to complain about the reduction of his total emoluments on being promoted to the post of officer. The Bank also points out that this position was made absolutely clear while issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner on Oct. 14, 1970, Jan. 10, 1986 .

(3.) Shri Shetye, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the total emoluments drawn by the petitioner prior to his promotion as an officer on July 1, 1971 was entitled to protection and could not have been reduced by the Bank management. It was urged that reduction of Rs. 114.83 per month was without any authority. The submission is entirely misconceived and deserves to be repelled. As pointed out by the Bank management the petitioner was appointed as Special Assistant on Jan. 1, 1970 in view of the settlement reached with the Employees Union and under which it was specifically agreed that a clerk who is assigned work of Special Assistant immediately upon implementation of the agreed terms would be entitled to the additional emoluments of Rs. 114.83 but in case such clerk was promoted to the officer's cadre in terms of Bank's notice dated Aug. 8, 1970, then his basic pay as an officer will be fixed on the basis of his pre-allowance as a clerk only and the additional emoluments of Rs. 114.83 would not be taken into account. This settlement reached with the Employees' Union was made known to each of the employees by a circular issued by the Union and in addition to that the appointment letter issued by the Bank management to the petitioner while promoting him as an officer clearly recites that the appointment is made subject to the agreed terms between the management and the union. The petitioner accepted these terms and the appointment, and therefore, it is futile for the petitioner now to turn around and claim that he is entitled to protection of additional emoluments of Rs. 114.83 payable per month and which was paid while he was acting as a Special Assistant. Shri Damania, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, very rightly points out that the claim made by the petitioner in this connection right from the year 1972 was repeatedly turned down and the employees' union also supports the stand taken by the management that the petitioner is not entitled to the same.