P P ARORA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions involve a common question of law, and therefore, they are being 1990 disposed of by this common order. We shall mention herein, the facts of DB Civil Writ Petition No. 547/79 (P.P. Arora v. Central Bank of India).

(2.) P.P. Arora petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in Central Bank of India, on 21st March 69. He was later on promoted as Sub-Accountant on 17th Nov., 75, and is still in the service of Central Bank of India.

(3.) The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction for fixing their pay-scales in the Officers' Grade under Pillay Committee's recommendations. Their case is that the Central Bank of India has its branches all over the country at different places, and the areas have been classified in three categories, i.e., area No. 1, area No. 2 and area No. 3. These classifications have been made on the basis of population of various cities where the branches of the Bank are situated, in accordance with a bi-partite settlement. In area No. 1, the Metropolitan cities like Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are included, whereas, in area No. 2, almost all the State-Capitals including Jaipur, are included, and the remaining places come under area No. 3. The persons employed in area No. 1, are entitled to Basic Pay, DA and in addition to this, they are also entitled to House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance, whereas, the persons employed in area No. 2, are entitled to their Basic Pay DA and in some cases to House Rent Allowance also, whereas, the persons employed in area No. 3, are entitled to Basic Pay and DA only. The complaint/grievance of the petitioners is that when the persons are promoted in different areas, their basic pay in the three areas, is different. The persons who are juniors but employed in areas Nos. 1 & 2, have their basic pay more than those employed in area No. 3, and the persons employed in area No. 1, though they arc juniors when promoted, have their basic pay more than those employed in areas Nos. 2 & 3, and therefore, according to the petitioners, this amounts to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 &16 of the Constitution.