http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DURGA NARAYAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, DENA BANK

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 346 JT 1995 (1)   633  1995 SCALE  (1)306

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1. The Government of India, by a reso- 634 lution  dated July 19,1973 appointed a committee  consisting of  five members to standardise pay  scale,  allowances  and perquisites  of the Officers in the 14  Nationalised  Banks. The  committee came to be popularly referred as the  ’Pillai Committee’  named  after  its Chairman.   It  submitted  its report in May 1974.  The Government appointed a Study  Group of  Bankers  in September 1976 to make suggestions  for  the implementation  of  the  report.   The  Committee  suggested certain  modifications in the method of  implementation  and submitted  its  further  report in February  1977;  and  the Government  adopted the report as modified by the  Group  of Bankers. 2.   The question of implementation of the   report       as adopted by the Government was discussed by the Indian Bank’s Association   with  various  representatives  of   all   the Confederations  of  Banking Officers Organisation,  and  the Secretary of this Association addressed a private and confi- dential   letter  to  Chief  Executives  of  various   Banks including Dena Bank on March 15, 1978 &at the Government has desired to bring Pillai Committee’s recommendations in force latest with effect by May 1978.  The Chief Executives  were, therefore, advised to take steps to introduce the new scales of  pay and allowances as per the Committee’s report and  to make  appropriate fitment in the emoluments of the  existing officers with effect from 1st May, 1978, or even earlier  if so   desired,  after  discussion  with   the   organisations representing the Officers.  This letter further informed the Chief Executives about the desire of the Government that all new appointments on or after 1st May, 1978 should be on  the terms  and  conditions  contained in  the  Pillai  Committee report. 3.   The  aforesaid communication was followed by  a  secret

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

letter from the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of  Finance, Department  of  Economic Affairs  (Banking  Division)  dated March 28, 1978, mentioning about the concern of the  Govern- ment   about  the  delay  in  the  implementation   of   the recommendations  of the Pillai Committee.  In view of  this, the Banks were advised by the Joint Secretary that if  there is  going  to be delay in the total  implementation  of  the recommendations,  immediate steps should be taken  to  bring the  new  pay scales and allowances applicable  to  all  new recruits  and new promotees from clerks to  Officers  cadre, pending fitment of the existing officers in the new  scales. This letter contains some other advice also. 4.   It  is in the aforesaid background that the  Dena  Bank (hereinafter  the  Bank) offered to appoint  the  appellant, pursuant  to  his  application , in  the  Bank  as  Economic Officer  in  the  pay scale 1 as laid  down  by  the  Pillai Committee, which is Rs.700-1800, with other allowances, per- quisites   and   benefits  as  per  the   Pillai   Committee recommendations.   This  offer is dated 26th  May  1978  and states that the present emoluments would be as under:-                       Basic Pay          Rs.700.00                       Dearness Allowance  Rs.311.00                                          ----------                                          Rs. 1011.00 5.   The  appellant  joined the Bank accordingly  and  after about 10 years of his service approached the Madhya  Pradesh High  Court with the grievance that he had been denied  some increments in "Scale C" meant for Officers.  He also claimed for  the first time about his fitment in the new  pay  scale a.,;  recommended  by  the Pillai Committee  for  "Scale  C" Officers 635 who  were  categorised  as  junior  Management  Grade  Scale 1’Officers  by the Committee.  The High Court dismissed  the writ  petition.   Feeling aggrieved, this  appeal  has  been filed. 6.   There  is no dispute that the appellant is entitled  to the  benefit conferred by the report in question.   Question is whether by fixing his basic pay at Rs. 700/- at the  time of  his  appointment  itself,  the  benefit  has  been  made available to him or not.  The contention of the appellant is that though the basic pay meant for Junior Management  Grade Scale 1 Officer as recommended by Pillai Committee man  made available to him, the fitment of which mention has been made in   Dena   Bank  (Officers)   Service   Regulations,   1979 (hereinafter  the Regulation) has not been; and it  is  this claim of his which he is pursuing.  The case of the Bank  on the other hand is that the appellant is not entitled to  any fitment  of  which mention has been made in para  8  of  the Regulation  inasmuch as question of fitment can  arise  only for  the existing Officers and not for new  appointees  like the  appellant.   The  further  case of  the  Bank  is  that whatever was made available by the Pillai Committee’s report to  incumbent  like  the  appellant  had  been  given  while offering  appointment to him, as has been clearly stated  in the  offer  of appointment by which the appellant  was  made aware of the recommendations which he had read and noted  as endorsed  by him in the offer of appointment.  To  this  the reply of the appellant is that if anything further is due to him,  same  may  not be denied on  the  slippery  ground  of estoppel,  which  was  also one of  the  reasons  which  had prevailed  with  the  High  Court  in  dismissing  the  writ petition. 7.   There can be no denial on the facts as noted above that though Pillai Committee’s recommendations were formally made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

effective  from  1st  July, 1979, the same had  come  to  be implemented with effect from 1st May 1978; and it is because of this, that though the appellant’s offer of appointment is dated  26th May, 1978 his basic pay was stated as  Rs.700/-, though  in the advertisement, which was published  on  25/26 August, 1977 pursuant to which appellant had applied, emolu- ments  to  be given were said to range from Rs. 325  to  Rs. 925/-.  So the only question left for our consideration,  as already indicated, is whether anything further is due to the appellant  because of what has been stated in para 8 of  the Regulation relating to fitment. 8.    According to us, the appellant is not  entitled to any amount on this score for the following reasons:- (1)  The question of fitment can really arise only qua those officers who were in the old scale of pay and which came  to be  revised pursuant to Pillai Committee’s Report,  and  not qua  those who had already been given new pay scale, as  was the appellant. (2)  Para   7   of   the   Regulation   which   deals   with categorisation  shows  that  Scale ’C’ post  was  placed  in Junior  Management Grade Scale 1. The appellant having  been put in the pay scale of Rs.700-1800, which as per the Report was  meant  for Junior Management Grade Scale  1,  there  is sufficient force in the contention advanced on behalf of the Bank in the written submissions field on 11. 1.95, that  the appellant  was not holding the post in Scale ’C’ on  1.7.79; and  insofar as he is concerned, this post has already  been equated 636 with  Junior  Management Grade Scale 1 at the  time  of  his appointment. (3)  The  contention of the appellant as advanced in  "Short Note of Argument" submitted on 10. 1.95 that he was entitled not only to the pay scale laid down by the Pillai  Committee Report  but benefits also (which word has  been  emphasised) has no cutting edge inasmuch as perusal of the Report  shows that  apart  from the matter relating to the  pay  scale  it dealt  with  "Amenities, Facilities and  Benefits  in  Kind" which formed subject matter of Chapter 7 of the Report.  So, the  claim  of fitment cannot be sustained on the  basis  of what was recommended on the score of benefits in kind. (4)  The decision of this Court in Shri Devenadra Management Trainees v. Punjab National Bank, JT 1993 (6) SC 537,  which has been referred in the aforesaid note of the appellant  in support of his submission, does not really advance his case, because, as rightly mentioned in the written submissions  on behalf  of  the  Bank, that case  was  different  on  facts. Therein  the employees were not initially appointed  in  the regular  pay  scale as recommended by the  Pillai  Committee Report  but were given fixed emoluments of Rs.700/-.  It  is because  of  this  that they were ordered to  be  given  the benefit  of  the Pillai Committee Report.   Facts  here  are quite different. 9.   We  are, therefore, of the view that there is no  merit in  the contention of the appellant that he is  entitled  to any  higher emolument on the score of ’fitment’.   But  then the  offer of appointment which was given to  the  appellant shows  that while fixing his emoluments, Dearness  Allowance (DA) was mentioned as Rs.311.50. We, however, find that  DA, as  per  Chart 1 given in the booklet  titled  "Pay  Scales, Allowances  and Perquisites of Officers in the  Nationalised Banks"  issued by All India Confederation of Bank  Officer’s Organisations  (Maharashtra State Unit), of  those  officers whose basic pay is Rs.700 is required to be Rs,450.  If this was  so as per the recommendations of the Pillai  Committee,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  DA of the appellant would be required to be  raised  to Rs.450. The Bank would verify this and do the needful within a  period  of two months from today by  passing  a  speaking order  in this regard, a copy of which would be sent to  the appellant for his information. 10.  Subject to the aforesaid observation relating to change in  DA, the appeal is dismissed.  On the facts  and  circum- stances of the case, we however, make no order as to costs. 639