ARVIND GANESH KARNIK Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith.

(2.) Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(3.) The petitioners who are ex-employees of the Reserve Bank of India are aggrieved by Circular dated October 10, 2008 by which Reserve Bank of India had withdrawn its earlier circular dated September 1, 2003. By circular dated September 1, 2003, the pension of the1 petitioners was revised and updated from the year 2002. Admittedly, the petitioners and other similarly situated ex-employees of the Reserve Bank of India were also paid according to the updated pension. The case of the petitioners is that the earlier circular dated September 1, 2003 has been withdrawn and another circular dated October 10, 2008 has been issued by the Reserve Bank of India not on its own but only t because of the directions issued by the Govt. of India. According to the petitioners, the Govt. of India has no power to issue such directions to the Reserve Bank of India. According to the learned Counsel for the Reserve Bank of India, t the only reason why they have withdrawn the: circular dated September 1, 2003 is the directions issued by the Govt. of India directing them to withdraw the circular dated September 1, 2003. According to the learned Counsel for, the Reserve Bank of India, the Government of India has issued that direction for withdrawal of the circular dated September 1, 2003 to the Reserve Bank of India under Section 7 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. According to the petitioners, power under Section 7 of the Act is not available to the Govt. of India. In any case, the directions which takes away the benefit which is already extended to the petitioners could not have been taken away by the Reserve Bank of India without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. From the record, it appears to be ah admitted position that by circular dated September 1, 2003, the pension of the petitioners and other similarly situated ex-employees was updated from the year 2002 and the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were getting pension at the updated rate. The only reason for withdrawing the circular dated September 1, 2003 is the directions issued by the Govt. of India to the Reserve Bank of India to withdraw the circular dated September 1, 2003. The result of the circular is that, the benefit which was extended to the petitioners and other employees since the year 2002 stands withdrawn with retrospective effect. Admittedly, at no point of time, they were given an opportunity of being heard by the Reserve Bank of India or the Govt. of India before doing this. In our opinion, the reason which has been given in the communication of the Govt. of India that there is a amendment in the RBI pension regulation does not appears to be proper. It is also not free from doubt that under Section-7 of the Act, in the present case, the Govt. of India has power to issue such directions to the Reserve Bank of India. However, we do not propose to decide that issue, as in the present case, undisputedly benefit which was enjoyed by the petitioners from the year 2002 was withdrawn without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The circular impugned in the petition is therefore, liable to be set aside. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice.