http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: V.K. RAMA RAO AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURALDEVELOPMENT THROUGH I

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1989

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. MISRA RANGNATH RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 501  1990 SCC  Supl.  100  JT 1989  Supl.    394    1989 SCALE  (2)1407

ACT:     Civil Services--Pay Scales--Fitment of employees in  new scales-To  be  done by revising  salaries  upward--At  times additional benefit treated as personal pay till merged--Such procedure not discriminatory but eminently just and valid.

HEADNOTE:     In  response  to the charter of demands  concerning  the revision  of  pay scales, submitted by the officers  of  the Respondent Bank, called "NABARD Officers’ Association",  the bank  on 9.10.85 revised the pay scales of all its  officers as  per  settlement with the Association and gave  the  said revision  retrospective operation w.e.f. 1st February  1984, following  the same date as was done in the Reserve Bank  of India.  In order to fix the salaries of the  employees,  who were  in employment of the Bank of 1-2-1984, the  Respondent Bank prepared a refixation chart which was duly approved  by the  NABARD  Officers’ Association. The chart was  made  ap- plicable to all the officers who were in service of the Bank on  1.2.1984. The chart was a device to fit the salaries  of the  concerned officers in the new revised pay scales.  Thus it contained fitment increments for the employees in service prior to 1.2.84 to avoid reduction in emoluments and  anamo- lies  which would otherwise have resulted. These  increments were  to  merge in the new scales in the course of  time  as they were not designed to grant higher emoluments to the old employees  for all time to come but to avoid  anamolies  re- sulting  from  refixation of salaries into new  scales.  The Petitioners challenged the fitment increments granted to old employees.  It  was their case that  these  increments  gave undue  benefit  to the old employees as  against  them,  and since  they occupied the same posts they were also  entitled to the same fitment increments. They also invoked the theory the  ’Equal pay for Equal work’ by  alleging  discrimination between them and the old employees. It may be mentioned that the  Association  had 2284 members and  except  the  present petitioners no body had made a grievance against the refixa- tion chart. Dismissing the Petition, this Court, 502     HELD:  The  revision of pay is always  effected  with  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

particular  date prospectively or retrospectively.  Whatever the date from which it is effected, it necessarily  involves fitment of the salaries of the existing employees in the new scales.  A retrospective operation of the new scales  there- fore  involves,  for the same purpose, a  classification  of employees into two categories viz., those who were in  serv- ice  prior to the retrospective date, and those who  entered the  service thereafter. If the benefit of the  revised  pay scales  is to be conferred equitably on the old and the  new employees, the fitment of salaries is in evitable. To  avoid it is to deny the equal benefit of the revised scales to the employees  in service prior to the date from which  the  new sales came into effect.[506B-C].     The fitment/adjustment in the new scales further, has to be  done  by revising the salaries  upward.  This  sometimes necessarily  involves fitment in a higher stage in  the  pay scale  than  what  the employee would be entitled  to  by  a strict  application of the stage to stage adjustment.  Some- times the additional benefit is treated as personal pay till it gets merged in the next higher increment. This is a known practice  of equitable adjustment of the old pay  scales  to the new pay scales. There is not other way of effecting  the just and required adjustment. [506D-E]     The  adjustment increments granted to the old  employees on such occasions automatically achieve the dual purpose  of rewarding them for their past service and of adjusting their salaries  in the new scale. The adjustment,  fitment  incre- ments  are therefore not discriminatory but  eminently  just and valid. [512F]     K.N.  Ananda  & Ors. v. The  Karnataka  State  Financial Corporation,  Bangalore & Anr., [1985] Labour  &  Industrial Cases  Vol.  18 p. 1079; P. Savita S/o Shri P.L.  Savita  v. Union  of  India,  Ministry of Defence  (Deptt.  of  Defence Production) New Delhi & Ors., [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 101;  D.S. Nakara  &  Ors v. Union of India, [1983] 2  SCR  165;  State Government Pensioners Association & Ors. v. State of  Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 3 SCC 501; Kanpur Suraksha Karamchari  Union v. Union of India, [1988] 4 SCC 479; Reserve Bank of India & Ors. v. C.N. Sahasaranaman & Ors., [1986] 2 SCR 881;  Tarsem Lal Gautam & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala & Ors., AIR  1989 SC  30; C.R. Seshan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra  &  Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1287, referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Civil No. 1134 of 1986. 503 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Petitioner-in-person and Mohan Pandey for the Petitioners.     K.  Madhava  Reddy,  P.P. Rao, R.N.  Keshwani  and  H.S. Parihar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SAWANT, J. The petitioners who are employees of respond- ent No.  1 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural  Develop- ment  (hereinafter  referred to as the Bank) request  for  a direction  to the Bank to give them fitment  benefits  which were  given  to their counter parts who were in  the  Bank’s service prior to 1st February 1984.     2.  The  admitted facts are that on 1st  February  1984, petitioner  No. 1 was in the Bank’s service as  a  ’Grade-B’ Officer  land was promoted to ’Grade-C’  Officer’s.cadre  on March 7, 1984. Petitioners 2 to 4 were not in the service of the Bank on 1st February 1984. Petitioner No. 2 was appoint-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

ed  as  a  ’Grade-C’ Officer and Petitioners 3  and  4  were appointed  as ’Grade-B’ Officers, on various dates in  March 1984.  Petitioners  5 and 6 were in the  Bank’s  service  in Clerical Grade prior to 1st February 1984 and were appointed as Officers ’Grade-A’ after the said date.     3. The first respondent Bank came into existence on July 12,  1982 under an Act of Parliament, viz National Bank  for Agriculture  and  Rural Development Act, 1981.  The  initial staff of the Bank consisted of the employees of the  Reserve Bank of India and of those recruited by the Reserve Bank  of India  exclusively to serve the erstwhile Agriculture  Refi- nance  and Development Corporation which was taken  over  by the  1st  respondent Bank. On February 24,  1986,  the  Bank revised  pay  scales of all its Officers as a  result  of  a settlement on the charter of demands submitted by the Bank’s Officers’  Association called NABARD Officers’  Association. One of the demands of the Association was that the  revision in the scales of their pay should be on the same basis as of the  revision of the Officers in the Reserve Bank of  India. It appears that the NABARD Officers Association had  submit- ted its charter of demands on November 30, 1984 which was on the  same lines as the charter of demands submitted  by  the Officers  Association  of the Reserve Bank of India  to  the Reserve Bank of India. On October 9, 1985, the Reserve  Bank of  India revised the pay scales of its Officers  w.e.f  1st February 1984. As a result, the 1st respondent Bank 504 also  revised  the  pay scales of its  Officers,  as  stated earlier,  on  February 24, 1986, and to bring it  on  parity with  the  pay  scales of the Reserve Bank  of  India,  gave effect  to  them  also from 1st February,  1984.  Hence  the importance of the date February 1, 1984. Incidentally it may be stated that the revision of pay scales of the Officers in the  entire  Banking Industry was brought into  effect  from that  date. The said date is thus not arbitrarily  fixed  by the respondent Bank for giving effect to the revision of pay scales.     4. Since the revision of pay scales was given effect  to from  February 1, 1984, it was necessary to fit the  pay  of the  employees in service prior to February 1, 1984  in  the revised  pay scales. Hence it was necessary to  evolve  some uniform formula for the fitments. The Reserve Bank of  India had already prepared a refixation chart for the purpose. The respondent  Bank also prepared its refixation chart for  the purpose.  This  chart  was also approved of  by  the  NABARD Officers  Association. The Association at the relevant  time had  2284  members and except the  present  six  petitioners nobody  has made a grievance against the said chart. By  the present  Petition what is in effect, challenged is the  said refixation chart.     5.  The  refixation chart which is an  Annexure  to  the Petition gives effect to the terms of settlement between the Bank  and its Officers, which as stated above, is a part  of the  general  settlement in the Banking Industry.  The  said chart is made applicable to all the Officers who were in the service  of the Bank holding either probationary,  permanent or temporary appointments and its benefit is given from  1st February  1984. The chart is no more than a device for  fit- ting  the pay of the concerned Officers in the  revised  pay scales.  Since the revised pay scales were given  retrospec- tive  effect from 1st February 1984 it was necessary,  as  a first  step. to fit the pay in the old scales into  the  new scales  on  and from 1st February 1984. Such a  fitment  was necessary  only  in the case of those who  were  in  service prior  to  February 1, 1984. The entrants in  service  after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

that  date would automatically be treated as being  employed on  the new scales from the date of their entry.  There  was therefore, no need, as indeed there could not be, of  making fitment  adjustments  in  their case. There  is  further  no dispute  that  the employees like the petitioners  who  were appointed  either  for the first time, or  promoted  to  the higher  post,  after February 1, 1984, were  given  all  the benefits of the revised pay scales including the arrears  in salary, treating them as if they were appointed initially in the new scales. 505     6.  The  refixation chart  under  challenge,  therefore, contained a table of fitment of salaries of those  employees who were in service prior to 1st February 1984. It is common knowledge  that such fitment has to be made not by  reducing the  existing  pay of the employees but fixing it  into  the nearest higher stage in the new scale. The table incorporat- ed  in the chart therefore contained fitment increments  for the employees in service prior to 1st February 1984 (herein- after  referred to as the old employees) to avoid  reduction and anomalies which would otherwise result. These increments were to merge in the new scales in course of time, when  the concerned employees reached the appropriate stage in the new scale.  The  increments  given were not  designed  to  grant higher emoluments to the old employees for all time to come. As has been pointed out by the respondent Bank, there was  a possibility  of  reduction in salary in some  cases  and  of anomalies in other cases if a stage to stage adjustment  was made in their salaries. Hence the table was so prepared that the  fitments avoid the said consequences. The said  fitment adjustments in the salaries of the old employees resulted in temporary  increases  in  their pay  packets,  although,  as stated  earlier  these fitment increments were to  merge  in future  increments in the new scales. The grievance  of  the petitioners  in this petition is directed precisely  against these  fitment increments given to the old employees. It  is their  case that these increments give undue benefit to  the old  employees  as against them, and since they  occupy  the same posts they are also entitled to the same fitment  bene- fits. That is the main relief which they have claimed in the petition by prayer (a). The other reliefs are declaratory in nature and incidental to it. In support of their claim  they have  invoked  the theory of Equal Pay for  Equal  Work  and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by alleging discrimi- nation  between them and the old employees. They  have  also pressed certain decisions in support of their case.     7. As will be obvious from what we have stated  earlier, the whole basis of the petitioners’ case is misconceived. It proceeds on wrong presumptions and unwarranted premises. The present  is not a case of discrimination  between  employees belonging to the same class or of granting different  scales of  pay  to  them. The present is a case  of  adjusting  and fitting  the salaries of the old employees belonging to  the same class into the new scales of pay which are made  avail- able to both the new and the old employees. If in  effecting such  adjustments,  it  becomes necessary  to  give  fitment increments  to  the  old employees, it is to  work  out  the equities  and to do justice to them. Their past  service  in fact  merits  it. To deny them such adjustment is  to  treat them  unequally by ignoring their past service  and  placing them on par with 506 the  new entrants. For this purpose, however limited it  may be, the old employees in the present case stand in a differ- ent  class from that of the new. The classification for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

purpose is not only justified but necessary. The revision of pay  scales is always effected with a particular  date  pro- spectively or retrospectively. Whatever the date from  which it  is  effected,  it necessarily involves  fitment  of  the salaries  of  the existing employees in the  new  scales.  A retrospective  operation  of the new  scales  therefore  in- volves, for the same purpose, a classification of  employees into two categories, viz. those who were in service prior to the  retrospective  date and those who entered  the  service thereafter.  If the benefit of the revised pay scales is  to be conferred equitably on the old and the new employees, the fitment  of salaries is inevitable. To avoid it is  to  deny the equal benefit of the revised scales to the employees  in service  prior  to the date from which the new  scales  come into effect. The service jurisprudence, therefore, makes  it imperative  to grant such fitments in the emoluments of  the old  employees.  The fitment/adjustment in  the  new  scales further,  as  stated above, has to be done by  revising  the salaries upward. This sometimes necessarily involves fitment in  a higher stage in the pay scale than what  the  employee would be entitled to by a strict application of the stage to stage  adjustment. The provision is also,  therefore,  some- times made to treat the additional benefit as a personal pay till it gets merged in the next higher increment. This is  a known practice of equitable adjustment of the old pay scales to  the new pay scales. There is no other way  of  effecting the just and required adjustment. Thus, it is not a case  of giving  undue benefits to one section of the  employees  be- longing  to  the  same class, but is a  case  of  conferring equitable benefits on the old employees and effecting a just adjustment  between the salaries of the old and new  employ- ees, as necessitated by the new pay scales.     8.  As stated above, there is no dispute in the  present case  that  the  petitioners were either  appointed  to  the higher post or they came in the service of the Bank, for the first time after February. 1, 1984. Those who were appointed to  the  higher  post after February 1, 1984  and  who  were therefore necessarily in the lower post prior to that  date, get  the  benefit of fitment into the new  scales  in  theft earlier  lower  post according to the very  same  refixation chart  and  received arrears of salary on  account  of  such refixation. What they claim now is that notwithstanding  the benefit of the refixation they got in theft lower post, they should  also get the said benefit in the higher post, as  if they  were promoted to the higher post prior to February  1, 1984.  Similarly, those of the petitioners who  entered  the Bank’s  service for the first time after February  1,  1984, want the benefit of refixation as if they 507 were in service prior to February 1, 1984. The claim of  the petitioners is thus on the face of it both unreasonable  and unsustainable in law.     9.  We may now examine the authorities cited before  us. K.N. Ananda & Ors. v. The Karnataka State Financial Corpora- tion,  Bangalore  & Anr., [1985] Labour &  Industrial  Cases Vol. 18 P. 1079 was not a case of fitment of the salaries of the  old employees into the revised scales of pay.  In  that case, what the respondent Karnataka State Financial Corpora- tion had, instead done was to prepare a conversion table and give the old employees salaries in the revised scale accord- ing  to the said table. The pay given to,the  old  employees according  to  the table had apparently no relation  to  the stages in the revised pay scale at which the salaries of the old  employees had to be fitted. The Corporation also  could not  explain  the basis on which the said table  was  worked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

out. In fact, as is apparent from paragraph 16 of the  judg- ment,  the learned counsel for the Corporation being  unable to furnish the basis of the differentiation in the salaries, submitted  before  the court that in  fact  the  Corporation wanted to protect the total emoluments and to allow the  new employees, who were petitioners in that case, to earn incre- ments  over  and above the pay, as enacted in  the  Corpora- tion’s resolution of 30th March 1978 which was reproduced in the judgment. But the State Government did not agree.     It  is  for this reason that the High Court  there  held that the conversion table insofar as it was made  applicable to the old employees only, was discriminatory in nature  and therefore  invalid. It will thus be seen that the  facts  in that  case  were different and hence the ratio of  the  said decision is not applicable to the present case.      P. Savita S/o. Shri PL Savita v. Union of India, Minis- try  of Defence (Deptt. of Defence Production) New  Delhi  & Ors.,  [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 101 was again not a case of  fit- ment  of  the salaries of the old employees into a  new  pay scale. In fact, what was done in that case was to  prescribe two  separate  pay scales for Senior Draftsmen  by  dividing them  artificially  into seniors and juniors,  and  awarding Senior Draftsmen new scales while keeping the Junior Drafts- men on the old scale. The Court, therefore, struck down  the classification.      D.S.  Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India’s case  [1983]  2 SCR  165 was a case of dividing the same class of  individu- als,  namely, the pensioners on the basis of  an  artificial date,  and  giving benefit of pension calculated  on  a  new basis  to  those employees only who had retired  after  31st March 1979. while denying the benefit of the same 508 computation  to those who had retired before that date.  The classification made of the pensioners into two categories on the  basis  of  their retirement date had no  nexus  to  the object  which was sought to be achieved, namely to  mitigate the  hardship of the fixed income group, on account  of  the ever rising prices, and of the lowering of the value of  the rupee. In fact, it was pointed out by the Court in that case that  by  extending the benefit to those employees  who  had retired prior to March 1979 the Court was not making  liber- alisation of the pension retroactive. It was only giving the benefit of the same basis of computation to all the pension- ers whether they had retired before or after that date.  The Court also pointed out in that context that  retroactiveness is implicit in the theory of wages. When revised pay  scales are  introduced from a certain date, all existing  employees are  brought on to the revised scales adopting a  theory  of fitments and increments for the past service. The benefit of the revised scales is not limited to those who enter service subsequent  to  the date fixed for introducing  the  revised scales  but  is extended also to those in service  prior  to that date. These observations would also make it clear  that it is a general practice recognized even by this Court  that when new pay scales are introduced, the salaries of the  old employees have to be adjusted and fitted into the new scales by adopting some formula of fitments and increments for past service.  In  fact,  if such fitment is not  made,  the  old employees  would get no benefit for the service rendered  by them in the past, and they would be placed on par with those who  enter  the service after the date of  the  revision  of scales.  That  would  be a case of  unequals  being  treated equally.  It is, therefore, an absence of fitments  and  ad- justments  and not their application which results  in  dis- crimination.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

   In  State Government Pensioners’ Association &  Ors.  v. State  of Andhra Pradesh. [1986] 3 SCC 501,  the  Government Order dated 26th March 1980 providing for higher gratuity to the  employees  who  had retired after 1st  April  1978  was challenged by the Pensioners’ Association on the ground that the benefit of the said higher gratuity was not made  avail- able  to them. The Court held that the provision of  payment of gratuity on stepped-up basis prospectively from a  speci- fied date of retirement, was not unconstitutional.     In  Kanpur Suraksha Karamchari Union v. Union of  India, [1988]  4  SCC 479 the Government of India by its  Order  of 25th  July  1981  accorded sanction to  treat  employees  of canteens  established  in  Defence  Industrial  Installation under  Section  46 of the Factories Act  as  the  Government employees with immediate effect. By an amend- 509 ment,  the  said Govt. Order was given effect to  from  22nd October 1980. The question which was raised in the case  was whether  the  employees who were  recognised  as  Government employees w.e.f. 22nd October 1980, were entitled to  calcu- late the service rendered by them prior to 22nd October 1980 for  the purpose of their pension, and the Court  held  that the  period  of service rendered by the employees  prior  to that  date has to be counted for the said benefit. This  was thus in effect giving benefit to the old employees of  their past service.     In Reserve Bank of India & Ors. v. C.N. Sahasaranaman  & Ors.,  [1986] 2 SCR 88 1, what was challenged was  the  com- bined  seniority  and  scheme of promotions  for  cadres  of Officers  and non-Officers in the Reserve Bank of India.  In the past, there was a separate departmentwise and grade-wise seniority, and the promotions to the cadres of Officers  and non-Officers  were effected on the basis of such  seniority. In September 1962, a need was felt for the maintenance of  a combined  seniority list at each centre for the purposes  of promotions as recommended by the National Industrial  Tribu- nal  presided over by Justice Desai.  These  recommendations for centre-wise combined list were approved by this Court in 1966. In 1970, the supervisory staff in Class1 was  upgraded to  staff  officers in Class-1 pursuant  to  the  settlement between  the employees and the Bank on January 9, 1970  sub- ject to certain conditions. On 6th June 1970, a circular was issued  for introduction of written examination for  depart- mental  promotions of clerks grade-I/Assistants etc. to  the post  of  Staff  Officers Grade II in all  the  groups.  The circular was not, however, enforced. On May 7, 1972 the Bank took several steps towards equalising promotional opportuni- ties  of  employees by introducing what was known  as  Optee Scheme of 1965 and the Optee Scheme of 1966, and finally  by entering  into  a  settlement with the  Association  of  the employees on May 7, 1972. The Association by that settlement accepted the principle of maintenance of a combined seniori- ty list at a centre. On the same date, the Bank formulated a Scheme for promotions of staff officer Grade I1 after giving full opportunity to the Association to make its suggestions. On  that  occasion, tile Bank and  the  Association  further agreed  by  exchange  of correspondence that  the  ratio  of direct  recruits to the promotees in the total  strength  of officers staff Grade II should be 17.5%: 82.5%. On 13th May, 1972,  the  Bank introduced administrative  circular  No.  8 which was binding on all employees of the Bank. On the  same date, the Bank introduced another circular No. 9 on  "Scheme of Combined Seniority List and switch over from clerical  to non-clerical"  w.e.f. May 7, 1972 which was also binding  on all  employees. The constitutional validity of  this  Scheme

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

also was upheld by this Court. 510     On  May 22, 1974 the Bank took a decision based  on  the recommendations  of the Cadre Review Committee,  and  issued administrative circular No. 15 to prepare a common seniority list and to provide for another group mobility at the lowest level  of  officers in Grade-A w.e.f. January  1,  1970.  On January 7, 1978 the Bank took further decision based on  the recommendations of two Committees, and issued circular No. 8 to  combine  the seniority of all officers in  Grade  B  and above,  w.e.f.  May 22, 1974, with a view  to  equalise  the opportunity  for promotion among officers.  Three  employees who were Grade II clerks working at the Nagpur branch of the Bank ever since their employment, variously between 1962  to 1965,  challenged clauses (II)(a)(i) of  the  Administrative Circular No. 8 of May 13, 1972 dealing with "the Scheme  for promotion from staff officer Grade 1I" (later designated  as Grade  A) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High  Court. This  clause provided for the number of candidates who  will be  qualified to appear in the test at the written  examina- tion. The clause stated that an estimate of the vacancies to occur in each office during the panel year, i.e. 1st Septem- ber to 31st August, will be declared by the Bank in advance, and the number of candidates in that office will not  exceed twice the number of such vacancies subject to other  clauses in the Scheme. The grievance of the petitioners was that the said clause was violative of their rights under Articles  14 and 16 of the Constitution since the chance to appear in the examination  depended not on relative merits but  merely  on the fortuitous circumstance, namely, the number of vacancies occurring in the particular centre in a panel year which had no nexus with the purpose of promotion, namely, to secure  a fresh cadre of staff officers, and therefore, the Scheme was bad in law. The High Court found force in the submission and struck down the said clause. In allowing the appeal filed by the Bank, this Court there held, among others, that:                        "In   service   jurisprudence   there               cannot be any service rule which would satisfy               each and every employee and its  constitution-               ality has to be judged by considering  whether               it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the               majority of the employees and fortunes of some               individuals  is not the touch-stone.  Further,               whether  there has been denial of equality  of               the  view of promotion or  any  constitutional               right infringed or not cannot be judged, where               interest  of large number of people  are  con-               cerned, in the abstract."                        3.2  "The reference held pursuant  to               the  orders of this Court dated 2nd May,  1984               undoubtedly indicates that               511               majority  of  the employees are in  favour  of               acceptance  of  the  modified  settlement.  In               matters of service conditions it is  difficult               to  evolve  as ideal set  of  norms  governing               various  conditions  of services and  in  grey               area  where  service rules operated,  if  more               than one view is possible without  sacrificing               either  reasons  or commonsense  the  ultimate               choice  has necessarily to be  conditioned  by               several considerations ensuring justice to  as               many  as  possible and injustice  to  as  few.               These principles, however, significant do  not               authorise  the  majority of the  employees  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             trample upon the constitutional guarantees  or               rights of the individuals or minority  employ-               ees. Majority cannot thwart or barter away the               constitutional  rights of the minorities.  The               constitutional guarantees are to protect  this               very danger. But in judging the content of the               constitutional rights, the entire  perspective               of the equality of opportunity here and denial               of equal right in public employment have to be               viewed in a fair, reasonable and just perspec-               tive.  Viewed in that light, it is true  there               may   be  individual  instances   exemplifying               injustices  by  postponing  or  delaying   the               chances  of promotions of the  contesting  re-               spondents  yet that does not deny  them  their               constitutional  right in its  proper  measure,               and the considerations that have weighed  with               the making of the modified scheme and in light               of  the  other considerations it must  be  ob-               served that with whatever care and objectivity               or  foresight any rule is framed,  some  hard-               ship,  inconvenience  or  injustice  might  to               result but the paramount consideration is  the               reconciliation  of the conflicting  claims  of               two  important  constituents  of  service--one               which brings fresh clerical employees and  the               other  mature  experience. There  has  been  a               happy  merger of these two  considerations  in               the  scheme  proposed and in that  merger,  no               violation  of  the guaranteed  rights  of  the               opposing respondents have occurred."     The observations have much bearing on the present  case. As  has  been pointed out hereinabove, in the  present  case also  refixation chart of the salaries of the employees  was worked out with the approval of the Association of the  Bank Officers  concerned.  The employees  involved  were  further large  in number. Any chart evolved to fit the  salaries  of the  old  employees who had entered the service  during  the whole  span  of the period prior to 1st February  1984,  was bound to result in some employees getting slightly more  and others getting 512 slightly  less. It is not possible in such circumstances  to satisfy all employees to the same degree. Hence, as contend- ed by the petitioners, if in some cases. the employees  have received some excessive benefit, the chart cannot be faulted on  that account. The chart as applied is a uniform one  and is designed to adjust the old salaries in the new scale.  In a  large organisation with a large number of  employees  in- volved  in the exercise, a few marginal cases  of  excessive benefits  cannot  be relied upon to  invalidate  the  entire chart,  for  no adjustment chart in such cases can  be  free from some defects.     In  Tarsem Lal Gautam & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala  & Ors.,  AIR 1989 SC 30 and in C.R. Seshan & Anr. v. State  of Maharashtra  &  Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1287 this  Court  has,  in fact,  held  that  a higher category in the  same  class  of employees on the basis of seniority-cummerit can be  carried out  and  a  higher pay scale can be given  to  such  higher category  and that it is neither arbitrary  nor  unconstitu- tional to do so.     10.  The aforesaid review of the authorities shows  that none of them supports the proposition advanced by the  peti- tioners,  namely,  that the salaries of  the  old  employees cannot  be  brought on to the new or revised pay  scales  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

giving  them  fitment increments as is done in  the  present case. In fact, in such a case to refuse to fit the  salaries of  the  old employees in the new scales of pay  by  denying them  the necessary fitment or adjustment increments, is  to deny them the equality of treatment. That amounts to  ignor- ing their past service and to treating them on par with  the new entrants which would be unjust in itself. The adjustment increments  granted to the old employees on  such  occasions automatically achieve the dual purpose of rewarding them for their  past service and of adjusting their salaries  in  the new scale. The adjustment fitment and increments are  there- fore not discriminatory but eminently just and valid.     11.  In  the  circumstances, we find no  merit  in  this petition  and dismiss the same. There will, however,  be  no order as to costs. Y.   Lal                                            Petition dismissed. 513