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

PETITIONER: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA STAFF OFFICERSASSOCIATION AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/08/1991

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1992 AIR  485            1991 SCR  (3) 460  1991 SCC  (4) 132        JT 1991 (3)   579  1991 SCALE  (1)304

ACT:     Constitution of India. 1950--Articles 14,  16--Non-local     &  local bank officers of Reserve Bank      at  Gauhati--Certain     incentives to nonlocal officers--Whether discriminatory.

HEADNOTE:     By  a letter dated December 9, 1983  certain  incentives and  allowances were provided by the appellant to its  offi- cers  posted at Gauhati who were not from the  North-Eastern region.  Those  allowances were generally known  as  special duty  allowances  and the main special duty  allowance  com- prised 25% of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs.400  per month.     By  a  Memorandum issued by the appellant on  April  11, 1985,  an  ad hoc increase in salary was effected  for  non- local  officers  and an option was given to them  either  to choose  the ad hoc increase or the special  duty  allowances for the period during which they were posted at Gauhati.     The respondent demanded the extension of the said  bene- fits  to  the local officers by their letter dated  May  10, 1985. When the appellant-bank declined to allow the benefits to the local officers, the respondent-association challenged the  Memorandum dated April 11, 1985 in a writ  petition  in the  High  Court, contending that all the  officers  of  the appellant-bank posted at Gauhati, whether they were from the North-Eastern  region  or outside had to live  in  the  same conditions and suffer from the same hardships, and hence, if any  allowance  was given to the officers  transferred  from outside  to  the  Gauhati Office, the  very  same  allowance should  also be given to the local officers posted  at  Gau- hati.     The  appellant  bank  averred in its  counter  that  the scheme of ad hoc incentives was introduced to tide over  the problem of adequately staffing the Gauhati office; that  the non-local  officers  experienced  difficulties  in   getting accommodation, getting familiar with the language and so on, and some incentives had to be given to them to mitigate  the hardships  experienced by them on transfer to Gauhati;  that the said incentives were temporary and because of the pecul- iar circumstances 461 prevailing at the moment in. the North-Eastern region, which

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

was regarded as a difficult region.     The  High Court allowed the petition, holding  that  all officers  at  Gauhati suffered from substantially  the  same hardship  and that the local officers of the  appellant-bank at Gauhati were discriminated against and directed that they must  be given the same benefits as the  non-local  officers transferred to Gauhati. Allowing the appeal by special leave filed by the.bank, this Court,     HELD: 1.01. The hardship and inconveniences suffered  by an  officer  of the appellant-bank who  was  transferred  to Gauhati  from  regions other than the  North-Eastern  region would  certainly be more acute than those suffered by  local officers posted at Gauhati. [463G-H]     1.02. Some of the officers coming from the North-Eastern region  may also face considerable hardship when  posted  at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a few such officers would  not render the payment of special  allowance,  exclu- sively to officers transferred from distant regions discrim- inatory and bad in law. [464B-C]      1.03. The Reserve Bank of India, is a banking  institu- tion  and if in the interest of efficiency and proper  work- ing,  it  bona fide took the decision to  grant  some  extra benefits  to the non-local officers transferred  to  Gauhati with  a  view to maintain efficient working of its  unit  at Gauhati,  they  cannot  be treated as being  guilty  of  any unlawful discrimination. [464E-F]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  3  107  of 1991.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated 14.8. 1990  of  the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 407 of 1985. H.N. Salve. K.S. Parihar and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.     P.K.  Goswami,   Kailash  Vasdev  and  M.J.   Paul   for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. Special Ieave granted. Counsel heard. 462     This is an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, by special  leave. The contesting respondent, being  respondent No.  1,  is an association of its officers  at  its  Gauhati unit. The respondent association (referred to hereinafter as "the  respondent") represents the interests of  45  officers belonging to Grades A to C employed in the appellant bank at its unit at Gauhati. It appears from the affidavit filed  on behalf  of the appellant that there was difficulty  in  per- suading officers of the appellant posted outside the  North- Eastern region to accept transfers to the unit of the appel- lant in the North-Eastern part of the country which unit was located at Gauhati in Assam. It also emerges from the record that the Gauhati station was regarded as a hardship  station by  the  officers who were transferred to the  Gauhati  unit from  other regions of the country. The Government of  India found  a  similar difficulty in persuading its  officers  to accept  postings  in the NorthEastern region and  they  were given  substantial  incentives to accept  transfers  to  the North-Eastern  region.  We are not here  concerned  directly with the actual benefits granted by the Government of  India but  what is material is that such benefits had to be  given by  the Government of India. By a letter dated  December  9, 1983, certain incentives and allowances were provided by the appellant  to  its officers posted at Gauhati who  were  not

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

from the North-Eastern regions. Those allowances were gener- ally  known  as  special duty allowances. We  are  not  much concerned with the details as to how the special duty allow- ances  were calculated but the main special  duty  allowance basically  comprised 25% of basic pay, subject to a  maximum of  Rs.400  per month. These allowances were also  known  as special  compensatory allowances or remote  locality  allow- ances. By a Memorandum issued by the appellant on April  11, 1985, an adhoc increase in salary was effected for non-local officers  and an option was given to them either  to  choose the  adhoc increase or the special duty allowances  for  the period  during  which they were posted at Gauhati.  The  re- spondent  demanded the extension of the said benefit to  the local  officers  by its letter dated May 10,  1985.  We  may mention here that the local officers who were posted at  the Gauhati  did  get an extra allowance in  addition  to  their salaries  but  it  was considerably smaller  than  the  main compensatory allowance paid to the officers from outside the NorthEastern region who were transferred to Gauhati. Certain other  benefits  were  also allowed  to  non-local  officers transferred to Gauhati but there is no need to refer to them in  detail. The appellant declined to allow the same  allow- ances  to local officers posted at Gauhati as were given  to the  officers from other regions transferred to  Gauhati  as stated  earlier. It is this decision which gave rise to  the writ petition from the decision in which this appeal arises. 463     It  was  the  contention of the  respondent  before  the Gauhati  High Court that all the officers of  the  appellant bank  posted at Gauhati, whether they were from  the  North- Eastern region or outside had to live in the same conditions and suffer from the same hardships, and hence, if any allow- ance  was given to the officers transferred from outside  to the  Gauhati office, the very same allowance should also  be given to the local officers posted at Gauhati. In the  coun- ter  filed  in  the High Court by the  appellant  bank,  the Deputy Chief Officer of the appellant bank averted that  the hardships  faced by the non-local officers are greater  than those  faced  by  the local officers. The  scheme  of  adhoc incentives  was  introduced  to tide ’over  the  problem  of adequately  staffing the Gauhati office. Non-local  officers experienced  difficulties in getting accommodation,  getting familiar  with the language and so on, and  some  incentives had  to be given to them to mitigate the  hardships  experi- enced by them on transfer to Gauhati. It was clarified  that the said incentives were temporary and because of the  pecu- lier  circumstances prevailing at the moment in  the  North- Eastern region which was regarded as a difficult region.  It was accepted that considerable difficulties would have to be suffered by the officers posted there who hailed from places outside  the  NorthEastern  region. The  contention  of  the appellant  bank  failed to find favour with the  High  Court which  took the view that all officers at  Gauhati  suffered from  substantially  the same hardship and  it  pointed  out that,  for example, even officers from outside from  Tripura who  were  posted at Gauhati would suffer  almost  the  same degree  of hardship as officers transferred to Gauhati  from regions other than the North-Eastern regions although Tripu- ra was in the North-Eastern region. The High Court took  the view that the local officers of the appellant bank,  Gauhati were  discriminated against and directed that they  must  be given  the  same benefits as the non-local  officers  trans- ferred to Gauhati.      It  is  the correctness of the view taken by  the  High Court  which  is  sought to be impugned before  us  in  this

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

appeal. We are of the opinion that the High Court was,  with respect, in error in taking the view that officers from  the North-Eastern  region who were posted at Gauhati. either  on transfer  or  otherwise,  sufferred the  same  hardships  as officers  from  other regions transferred  to  Gauhati.  The hardship  and inconvenience sufferred by an officer  of  the appellant  bank who was transferred to Gauhati from  regions other than the North-Eastern region, would certainly be more acute  than those suffered by local officers posted at  Gau- hati.  His  mother tongue might completely be  different  in speech and, even as far as the script is concerned, from the 464 language  used  by the local people at Gauhati. He  and  his family  members would, therefore. find it very difficult  to communicate freely with the local people. His children might find  it difficult to get admission to a school  and  pursue their  education at Gauhati. They would be  unfamiliar  with the  surroundings and the customs of the people.  The  hard- ships  faced by an officer say from the Western or  Southern regions  of India or North India posted at Gauhati would  be qualitatively  as  well as quantitatively greater  than  the hardships faced by the local officers posted at Gauhati.  It may  be  that some of the officers coming  from  the  North- Eastern  region  may also face considerable  hardships  when posted  at  Gauhati but the fact that there might be  a  few such officers would not render the payment of special allow- ance,  exclusively  to  officers  transferred  from  distant regions  discriminatory and bad in law. The High Court  was, therefore,  not justified in coming to the  conclusion  that all  the  officers of the appellant bank posted  at  Gauhati sufferred from the same degree of hardship. A person  trans- ferred  from  outside the North-Eastern  region  to  Gauhati would normally have to face more severe difficulties than an officer from the North-Eastern region posted in Gauhati  or, at the least, the appellant bank could reasonably take  that view. Moreover, as pointed out by the appellant bank in  the counter  that  they were finding it  difficult  to  persuade their  officers from outside to accept transfers to  Gauhati and  it is common knowledge that an office of a  large  bank cannot be run efficiently by officers a large number of whom have  been posted there by transfers against their will  and under  the threat of disciplinary action. The work  done  by them could hardly be expected to be satisfactory. After all, the  appellant,  the  Reserve Bank of India,  is  a  banking institution and if in the interest of efficiency and  proper working it bona fide took the decision, in the circumstances set  out earlier, to grant some extra benefits to  the  non- local  officers transferred to Gauhati with a view to  main- tain efficient working of its unit at Gauhati, in our  opin- ion, they cannot be treated as being guilty of any  unlawful discrimination.     In  the  result, we allow the appeal and set  aside  the order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by respond- ent  No. 1 is dismissed. There will be no order as to  costs throughout. V.P.R.                                                Appeal allowed. 465