http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: KSHETRIYA KISAN GRAMIN BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: D.B.  SHARMA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/11/2000

BENCH: U.C.Banerjee, G.B.Pattanaik

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     PATTANAIK,J.

     The  appellant  is a Regional Rural Bank,  established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and is sponsored  by  the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Bank  Limited, Lucknow,  which is a society registered under the U.P.   Co- operative Societies Act.  There are 196 Regional Rural Banks in  the  country but out of them 195 banks are sponsored  by the  nationalised  banks and it is only the appellant  bank, which  is  sponsored by the U.P.  Co-operative Bank.   Under Section  3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, it is  the Central  Government,  who  by Notification in  the  official Gazette,  establishes one or more Regional Rural Banks, only on  being requested by a sponsor bank to establish the same. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act it is the duty  of  the  sponsor bank to aid and assist  the  Regional Rural  Bank  sponsored  by it by subscribing  to  the  share capital,  training personnel of such Regional Rural Bank and providing  such managerial and financial assistance to  such Regional  Rural  Bank  during the first five  years  of  its functioning  as  may  be mutually agreed  upon  between  the Sponsor  Bank  and  the  Regional Rural  Bank.   Under  sub- section  (2)  of  Section  6, of the  capital  issued  by  a Regional  Rural  Bank fifty per cent shall be subscribed  by the  Central  Government, fifteen percent by  the  concerned State  Government  and thirty five per cent by  the  Sponsor Bank.   Under  Section  17,  the   Regional  Rural  Bank  is empowered  to  appoint  such number of  officers  and  other employees as it may consider necessary and may determine the terms  and  conditions  of their  appointment  and  service. Under Second proviso to aforesaid Section 17 remuneration of officers  and  other employees appointed by  Regional  Rural Bank  will  be  such  as may be determined  by  the  Central Government  and in determining such remuneration the Central Government  shall have due regard to the salary structure of the  employees  of  the  State   Government  and  the  local authorities  of comparable level and status in the  notified area.   The employees of the Regional Rural Banks filed Writ Petitions  in  this  Court  under  Article  32,  being  Writ Petition  Nos.   7149-50  of 1982 and 132  of  1984  seeking parity  in  respect  of pay, salary,  allowances  and  other benefits  with  the  employees  of  Nationalised  Banks   in corresponding  or  comparable  posts.  This Court  by  order dated  1.9.1987  disposed  of those Writ  Petitions  as  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Central  Government agreed to appoint a National  Industrial Tribunal  to  decide the question relating to  pay,  salary, allowances  and  other benefits payable to the employees  of the  Regional  Rural  Banks constituted under  the  Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.  Pursuance to the aforesaid order the Government  of  India by Notification dated  26th  November, 1987  referred  the  disputes raised in Writ  Petition  Nos. 7149-50  of 1982 and 132 of 1984 to the Industrial  Tribunal consisting of a Retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court  Justice  Obul Reddy.  The said  Tribunal  elaborately considered the materials placed before it and gave its Award on 30th April, 1988.  The said Tribunal by its Award came to hold  that  so far as the equation of posts  and  consequent fixation  of new scale of pay, allowances and other benefits for officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Banks at  par with the officers and other employees of  comparable level  in  the corresponding posts in the Sponsor Banks  and their  fitment  into new scale of pay, as are applicable  to officers   of  Sponsor  Bank  in  corresponding   posts   of comparable  level, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as  it  may  consider necessary.  In view of  the  aforesaid observations  of  the  Tribunal   the  government  of  India constituted a Committee, called the Equation Committee and referred  the Award to the Committee seeking for a report in the  matter of Equation.  On the basis of the recommendation of  the  Equation Committee dated 22nd February,  1991,  the Union  Government  in  exercise of power  under  Proviso  to sub-section  (1)  of  Section 17 of the Act  issued  certain directions  whereunder  the Branch Managers post  has  been equated  with  the  post of Assistant Manager  of  the  U.P. Co-operative  Bank Ltd.  and the scale of pay for the latter post has also been made applicable to the former post.  This Notification  of  the Union Government was assailed  by  the concerned  officers of the Bank by filing Writ Petition Nos. 19929  of 1991.  The High Court of Allahabad having  allowed the  Writ  Petitions  and having issued  certain  directions relating  to the salary of the employees of Kshetriya  Kisan Gramin Bank the present appeal has been filed by the Bank on getting  Special Leave to Appeal.  By the impugned  judgment the  High  Court  set  aside the  circular  of  the  Central Government  dated  27th February, 1991, and directed not  to make  any discrimination between the officers and  employees of  the Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank with the officers of the other  Gramin Banks and, further directed that the Assistant Branch  Managers  of the Appellant Bank should get the  same scale of pay as the Assistant Managers of other Gramin Banks sponsored  by the Nationalised Banks.  For issuing aforesaid direction  the  High Court came to the conclusion  that  the Tribunal  has  accepted  the  claim   of  the  employees  of Appellant  Bank  and had held that they are entitled to  the pay  scales  which  are  given  to  the  employees  of   the Commercial  Bank.  After referring to paragraph 4.428 of the Award the High Court further came to the conclusion that the Equation  Committee wrongly came to the conclusion that  the petitioners  being  Branch Managers are entitled to the  pay scales of Assistant Manager on the plea that since the Banks where  petitioners  were  previously   employed  have   been sponsored by Uttar pradesh Cooperative Bank Limited, Lucknow and  not  by other nationalised Bank.  Since  the  Kshetriya Kisan  Gramin  Bank,  Mainpuri  is the only  Bank  which  is sponsored  by  the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative  Bank  Limited, Lucknow and all other rural Banks have been sponsored by the nationalised  banks,  the High Court is of the opinion  that the  distinction  made by the Equation Committe is in  gross

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

violation  of  catena  of  decisions of  the  Supreme  Court relating  to the principle equal pay for equal work.   The High  Court also came to the conclusion that 27 officers  of the Appellant Bank have been discriminated in the payment of salary  and pay scales as they are otherwise entitled to get the  same  pay  scales of the Commercial Banks  as  well  as Nationalised  Banks.  On the question of job evaluation  the High  Court  also came to the conclusion that the nature  of job being performed by the officers of the Appellant Bank is not  dis-similar to that being performed by those  sponsored by  commercial  or nationalised banks and, therefore,  there cannot  be a discrimination in the matter of pay scales  and other benefits with their counter parts.

     At  the  outset, it may be stated that Appellant  Bank did  not  file  any  counter-affidavit  in  support  of  the Government  order  or  the recommendation  of  the  Equation Committee.   Mr.  Raju Ramachandran, learned senior  counsel appearing   for  the  appellant   submitted   that   without controverting  any  facts  which the employees of  the  Bank might  have  averred in the Writ Petitions filed before  the High  Court,  the  appellant  would be able  to  assail  the conclusions  of  the  High   Court  emanating  the  ultimate direction  with reference to the very award of the  Tribunal and  the report of the Equation Committee in as much as  the High  Court has failed to appreciate the basic principles on which  the Tribunal proceeded and has mis-read the  findings of the Tribunal which has vitiated the ultimate conclusions. According to Mr.  Ramachandran the Tribunal had specifically negatived  the  applicability of the plea of equal  pay  for equal  work.  On the other hand the Tribunal thought it  fit to  apply the principle of parity for determining the salary and  other  conditions  of service of the employees  of  the Regional  Rural Banks.  If the principle of parity is to  be applied  then  the employees of the Appellant Bank can  have their  pay  structure with reference to the sponsor bank  of the appellant, namely, U.P.  Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lucknow, and  not the salary of Commercial or Nationalised Banks  who happen  to  be  the sponsoror of 195  other  Regional  Rural Banks.   Mr.  Ramachandran also further urged that under the statute  the remuneration of officers appointed by  Regional Rural  Bank  could be determined by the  Central  Government under  the  Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section  17 and  while making such determination the Central  Government is  duty bound to have due regard to the salary structure of the  employees  of  the  State   Government  and  the  local authorities  of comparable level and status in the  notified area  where the Bank situates.  The aforesaid criteria fixed under  the  statute  will  also   weigh  with  the  Tribunal appointed  for  determining  the   pay  structure  of  these employees  who in essence is discharging the function of the Central  Government.  This being the position, it is obvious that  the  pay  structure of the sponsor bank at  the  State level  will be the relevant guiding factor and, as such, the Equation  Committee had rightly determined the pay structure of  the  respondent employees bearing in mind  the  criteria fixed  under  the  statute.    The  High  Court,  therefore, contended   by  Mr.    Ramachandran,  completely  overlooked aforesaid statutory criteria while recording its conclusions and  giving  ultimate  directions.  Mr.   Ramachandran  also contended  that  the Tribunal, bearing in mind  the  germane considerations  for  determination of pay structure  of  the employees  of  the  Regional Rural Banks came to  hold  that maintaining  a parity with the employees of the sponsor bank would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  second  proviso  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

sub-section  (1) of Section 17, but the High Court, however, had  totally  ignored  the   aforesaid  statutory   criteria provided  under  the  second proviso to sub-section  (1)  to Section  17, and thus committed gross error in equating  the employees  of  the Appellant Bank with the employees of  the other   Regional  Rural  Banks   whose  sponsoror  are   the Nationalised Banks in the matter of the pay structure of the employees.   According to Mr.  Ramachandran under the scheme of  the Act the umbilical links between the sponsor bank and the  Regional Rural Bank sponsored by them cannot be ignored and  on the other hand the same must be borne in mind  while deciding  the pay structure and other service conditions  of the  employees.   Mr.   Ramachandran also contended  that  a single  Gramin  Bank, like Appellant Bank may  constitute  a class  by  itself  and having regard to the  sponsorship  in question  in fact such a classification would be permissible and  would  not  violate  the   provisions  of  Article  14. According to Mr.  Ramachandran, if the impugned direction of the  High Court is given effect to then necessarily the  pay scales  of  the Sponsor Bank of the appellant  namely,  U.P. Cooperative  Bank Ltd.  will have to be raised and it  would lead  to  absurd  consequences which must be  avoided.   Mr. Ramachandran lastly submitted that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of salary of employees, the Expert Body appointed  for  the purposes is the best judge by virtue  of its  expertise  and the decision of such Expert Body  should not  be interfered with by the Court unless either malafides are  alleged  and proved or the Court comes to a  conclusion that  the decision is on account of extraneous consideration or  it  makes  a  hostile discrimination  and  arbitrary  in nature.   In  the  case in hand none of  these  having  been alleged  and  established the High Court  committed  serious error  in  interfering with the conclusion of  the  Equation Committee  who  had gone into detail and had determined  the pay structure of the officers of the Appellant Bank.

     Mr.   Anantharaman, advocate appearing for some of the respondents,  however, submitted that in terms of industrial jurisprudence the Regional Rural Bank employees are entitled to  claim  parity  with the employees  of  Nationalised  and Commercial  Banks on the ground of similarity of duties  and function  and  the  same  would  be  within  the  guidelines contained  in  the  second  proviso to  sub-section  (1)  of Section  17 of the Act and in fact the Tribunal has held so, and  this  being the position, the Equation Committee  could not  have decided the pay structure of the employees of  the Appellant  Bank differently from the employees of the  other Regional  Rural  Banks and, accordingly the High  Court  was fully  justified  in  coming  to its  conclusion  about  the discrimination  meted  out to the officers of the  Appellant Bank  and  was  fully  justified  in  issuing  the  impugned direction  which need not be interfered with by this  Court. According  to  Mr.  Anmantharaman the Award of the  Tribunal having been accepted by the Central Government in toto it is the  Equation  Committee which committed error  in  granting different  pay  structure for the officers of the  Appellant Bank  on the basis of so-called parity with the employees of its Sponsor Bank and as such, it was just and reasonable for the  High Court to interfere with the same and the  impugned judgment  does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as  to be  interfered  with  by this Court.  The  counsel,  further contends  that  neither the Bank nor the Union of India  nor even  the Sponsor Bank having filed any counter-affidavit in the  High Court, are not entitled to assail the  conclusions of  the  High  Court  which is based on  a  reading  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

findings  of the Tribunals and based on the sound principles of discrimination under the Constitution and it would not be appropriate  for this Court to interfere with the same.   In his  submissions as well as in the written submissions filed in  this  Court,  the learned counsel  referred  to  various paragraphs  of the Award to indicate that the very grievance of  the  employees of the Bank was to have parity  with  the employees  of the Nationalised and Commercial Banks and that grievance  has  been satisfied only by impugned judgment  of the High Court.  Consequently the impugned judgment does not require to be interfered with by this Court.

     Mr.   Vijay  Hansaria, learned counsel  appearing  for some  of  the respondents on the other hand  submitted  that even  in  the matter of equation the Equation Committee  was not justified in equating the officers of the Appellant Bank with  clerks  and other grades of employees of  the  Sponsor Bank,  as  is apparent from the conclusion made and in  this view   of   the   matter   it   would   constitute   hostile discrimination  and  such discrimination having been  struck down  by the High Court the judgment of the High Court  need not be interfered with by this Court.

     In view of the rival submissions at the Bar, the first question  that  arises for our consideration is whether  the Tribunal had really accepted the plea of principle of Equal pay  for  Equal work or had rejected the same and  instead, had  applied the principle of parity.  We have gone  through the  award passed by Justice Obul Reddi.  The dispute  which had  been referred to the tribunal for its decision was  the dispute  relating  to  pay,  salary,  allowances  and  other benefits  payable  to  the employees of the  Regional  Rural Banks  in terms of the pleadings of the parties in the  Writ Petition(Civil) Nos.7149-50/82 and 132 of 1984, filed in the Supreme  Court  of India.  The first two writ petitions  had been   filed  by  the  All   India  Grameena  Bank   Workers Organisation  and  the third one had been filed by  the  All India  Regional  Rural  Bank Employees Association.   It  is undoubtedly  true that in the writ petition, prayer had been made for issuance of a mandamus to fix the emoluments of the Regional  Rural  Bank employees in conformity with the  laid down  judicial  maxims  of equal pay for  equal  work  and industry-cum-region  formula  and  bring about  parity  in emoluments  between  the employees of Regional  Rural  Banks inter se and employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. The  Tribunal  on consideration of the stand of the  parties and  various  statistics  given  by the  Banks,  came  to  a conclusion   that  there  would  be  no   serious   economic repercussions, if the parity in the matter of pay-scales and allowances,  is given to the Regional Rural Banks employees. It  also  came  to the conclusion that there cannot  be  any comparison  between the District Central Co-operative  Banks and  Regional  Rural Banks inasmuch as Co-operatives  are  a State  subject  and  the  said banks are run  by  the  State Governments;   whereas  Regional Rural Banks are run by  the Central  Government  under  an Act of Parliament.   It  also found  that  the  work carried out by  Regional  Rural  Bank employees  and Nationalised commercial bank employees is the same,  both in quality and quantity.  It further found  that there  are  absolutely no grounds whatsoever to deny  parity between  the  employees  of  the   rural  branches  of   the commercial banks and those of Regional Rural Banks, applying the  yardstick of cost of living and volume of business.  It also  found  that  the Regional Rural Banks  and  the  rural

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

branches  of  the  commercial banks  perform  the  identical functions  and  duties.   The tribunal came to hold  on  the basis  of evidence on record that the employees of  Regional Rural  Banks form a separate class under a separate  statute and  so  are  the  employees of the  commercial  banks.   In paragraph 4.422, the tribunal held:

     4.422.  I further observed in para 4.149 that I must make  it  very clear in this connection and let there be  no ambiguity  about it, that my finding that the RRB  employees form  a  separate  class and that, therefore, they  are  not discriminated  against  so  as to attract  the  doctrine  of equal  pay  for  equal  work, has  to  be  disengaged  and de-linked  from  the question of their claim for  parity  in their  pay  structure  with the sponsor  bank  employees  in corresponding  and comparable posts within the framework  of the  2nd proviso on the facts and circumstances of the case. Shred  of legal nuances, their claims have to be examined on the principles of justice and equity.

     Ultimately,  the  tribunal held that the officers  and employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled  to claim  parity  with the officers and other employees of  the sponsor  banks  in the matter of pay scales, allowances  and other  benefits.   In paragraph 4.428, the tribunal held  as follows:

     4.428.   So  far  as the equation of  posts  and  the consequent fixation of the new scales of pay, allowances and other  benefits for Officers and other employees of the RRBs on  par with the Officers and other employees of  comparable level  in  corresponding  posts in sponsor banks  and  their fitment  into  the  new scales of pay as are  applicable  to Officers   of  sponsor  banks  in  corresponding  posts   of comparable  level, it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation with such authorities as  it  may consider necessary.  This will also include  the pay  scales,  benefits,  other  allowances  and  fitment  of sub-staff  of the RRBs with the sub- staff of sponsor banks. This  Award  is  accordingly passed and it shall  cover  all existing RRBs.  The Award shall be given effect to from 01st day of September, 1987.

     In  view of the aforesaid conclusions of the  tribunal on the basis of evidence placed before it, the conclusion is irresistible  that the tribunal never applied the  principle of  equal pay for equal work and on the other hand was  of the view that the employees of the Regional Rural Banks will be  entitled  to  claim parity with the officers  and  other employees  of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances  and  other  benefits  and  for  determining  the parity,  it  left  the matter to be decided by  the  Central Government  in consultation with such authorities as it  may consider  necessary.  We are, therefore, persuaded to accept the  submissions  of  Mr.  Ramachandran, appearing  for  the appellant  that while resolving the dispute of the employees of  the Regional Rural Banks, the tribunal did not apply the so-  called  principle of equal pay for equal work and  on the  other  hand  applied the principle of parity  with  the officers of the respective sponsor banks.

     The  next question then arises for consideration is as to what has been done by the Central Government to arrive at the  parity.   The Central Government appointed an  Equation Committee,  which  Committee  discharged   the  function  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

equation  of  posts  with the sponsor banks.   The  Equation Committee  was  a  Committee of five Members  with  Shri  P. Kotaiah as its Chairman.  It referred to the findings of the tribunal in its Award in paragraph 4.425, which entitles the employees to claim parity with the officers and employees of the  sponsor  banks in the matter of pay scales,  allowances and  other benefits.  It considered also the suggestions  of the different Associations.  It opined that the Personnel of the appellant bank should be equated only with the Personnel of  comparable  level in its sponsor bank, viz.   the  Uttar Pradesh  Co-operative Bank Ltd.  It thereafter, took up  the task  of  equation of posts and recommended the equation  on the  basis of some broad criteria and held that whereas  the officers  and  employees of the Regional Rural  Banks  other than the appellant bank can be equated with the officers and employees  of  their sponsor banks namely  the  Nationalised Banks or the Commercial Banks, but so far as the officers of the  appellant  bank is concerned, they have to  be  equated with  the  officers of its own sponsor bank namely the  U.P. Co-  operative Bank.  The Committee also took up the case of equation in detail and submitted its recommendation.  We see no  infirmity  with  the  Equation   made  by  the  Equation Committee on the basis of the pay structure of the employees of  the  respective  sponsor  banks   and  the  same  is  in consonance  with  the directions of the tribunal as well  as the  second  proviso to sub-section(1) of Section  17.   The High Court however in the impugned judgment without properly applying  its  mind  to  the  relevant  conclusions  of  the tribunal  as  well as the very basis on which  the  Equation Committee  discharged  its  obligation of doing the  job  of equation, erroneously, came to the conclusion that since the nature  of  job performed by the employees of the  appellant bank  is  not dis-similar to that being performed  by  those sponsored  by commercial or nationalised banks, a difference of  pay  scales  and  other  benefits  would  tantamount  to discrimination.    The   aforesaid   conclusion  is   wholly mis-conceived  and in utter disregard to the findings of the tribunal  as well as the principles enshrined in Article  14 of  the  Constitution.  It is too well settled that  even  a single  institution  can  form a class by itself  and  while deciding  the  question of violation of Article 14  what  is required to be found out is whether there are any reasonable basis  on which a single person or group of persons are left out  of the group and whether there is any rational relation for  such  differentiation  with  the object  sought  to  be achieved.   In other words, what is necessary is that  there must  be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object  of such classification.  This being the test and the test  being applied to the case in hand in the light of  the provisions  of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, it is the sponsor  bank, which plays a vital role in the establishment of the rural banks by Government of India and when the Union Government  is called upon to determine the remuneration  of the  officers and employees, appointed by the Regional Rural Banks,   the  statutory  requirements   that   the   Central Government  shall have due regard to the salary structure of the  employees  of  the  State   Government  and  the  local authorities  of comparable level and status in the  notified area.   This  being  the position and  the  tribunal  having specifically  held that the employees of the Regional  Rural Banks  are  entitled to claim parity with the  employees  of their  sponsor banks, the ultimate decision of the  Equation Committee  on the basis of such parity, cannot be held to be discriminatory nor can it be held to be violative of Article 14.   The  High Court, in our opinion, therefore,  committed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

serious  error  on the basis that the employees of  all  the Regional  Rural  Banks  are  entitled to  the  same  parity, irrespective  of the pay structure of the employees of their respective sponsor banks.  The impugned judgment of the High Court on this score stands vitiated.

     The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be justified in exercise of  its  extraordinary  jurisdiction under  Article  226  to interfere  with  the  findings of an Expert  Body  like  the Equation  Committee.  In State of U.P.  and Ors.  Vs.   J.P. Chaurasia   and  Ors.,  1989(1)   S.C.C.   121,  this  Court unequivocally  held that in the matter of equation of  posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government,  who can get it determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission, and such Expert body would be the best judge to  evaluate  the nature of duties and  responsibilities  of posts  and  when  such  determination  by  a  Commission  or Committee  is made, the Court should normally accept it  and should  not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown  that  it  was  made  with  extraneous  consideration. Bearing  in  mind the aforesaid parameters and on  examining the  impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court, we  have no  hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court has  tried  to tinker with the conclusions and decisions  of the  Equation  Committee,  even  in   the  absence  of   any allegations  or materials that such decision of the Equation Committee  was  on extraneous considerations.  The  Judgment and direction of the High Court on this score is accordingly vitiated.   The further conclusion of the High Court to  the effect :

     in   our  view  although   Tribunal  arrived  at  the necessary conclusion that the petitioners may be paid equal pay  for equal work because of similarity in the nature  of job  performed by them being at par with the Branch  Manager of  the Commercial Bank, there was no reason for making  any discrimination on the part of the Central Government to take the  contrary  view on the basis of the fact that since  the petitioners  are attached to Rural Banks, which is sponsored by U.P.  Cooperative Bank Ltd.

     is  a  thorough  mis-reading of the  findings  of  the Tribunal.   As  has been stated earlier, the Tribunal in  no uncertain  terms, came to the conclusion that the  principle of  equal pay for equal work cannot be applied, though the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks can claim parity with the employees of their sponsor banks.  The concept of equal pay for equal work and the concept of claim of parity with some  others are two different concepts and the  conclusion of  the High Court having been based on a mis-reading of the findings  of  the Tribunal, the said conclusion is  vitiated and  must  be set aside.  The conclusion of the  High  Court that  the Equation Committee erroneously equated the  Branch Managers  of the Appellant Bank with the Assistant  Managers of  other  Banks  is also a conclusion not  based  upon  any rational  basis  and  the High Court was fully in  error  in applying  the  pay  structure of the  Regional  Rural  Banks sponsored  by the Nationalised Bank to the pay structure  of the Appellant Bank which was sponsored by U.P.  Co-operative Bank.   The  Equation  Committee consisting  of  specialised personnel having examined the relevant datas and having made the  equation  with their expertise the same could not  have been  interfered  with by the High Court, particularly  when neither  there  has  been  any   allegation  of  malice   or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

extraneous  consideration  nor any materials on  that  score were there before the Court.

     In  the  aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment  of the  Allahabad  High Court is set aside and this  appeal  is allowed.   The  employees  of the Appellant Bank  would  get their pay structure as per the Report of the Equation

     Committee which was duly accepted by the Government.