LexCHAIRMAN, MAGADH GRAMIN BANK AND ANR. versus MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 2 S.C.R. 872 CHAIRMAN, MAGADH GRAMIN BANK AND ANR. v. MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003) FEBRUARY 17, 2010 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Regional Rural Banks Act: s.17(1), second pro.visa. Facility of automatic switch over from scale II to scale Ill C - Grant of - Held: Facility shall stand granted to the officers w.e.f. 16th December, 2002 - However, payment already made to employees be not recovered from them for the period earlier to 16th December, 2002. Computer increment, computer allowance - Grant of - D Letter dated 6th January, 2003 from Government of India to NABARD shows that grant of computer increment to employees/officers of RBBs was declined - Since the Government's decision denies benefit of computer increments, direction issued by High Court requiring E respondent-bank to grant the said benefit not sustained. Appeal: Government's decision regarding grant of certain benefits not challenged in writ petitions filed by aggrieved- employees before High Court - Plea before Supreme Court that Gov.ernment's decision was arbitrary and ought to be set F aside by permitting employees to amend the writ petitions or by remanding the matter to High Court - Held: Not tenable - Employees cannot be permitted to challenge the said decision in appeal before Supreme Court as High Court did not have an occasion to examine the matter in the writ G petitiO[IS heard and disposfJd of by it. H The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether employees of RRB are entitled to the facility of automatic switchover from Scale II to Scale 872 CHAIRMAN, MAGADH GRAMIN BANK AND ANR. v. 873 MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK Ill and grant of computer increment and computer A allowance. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The facility of automatic switch over from scale II to scale Ill shall stand granted to the officers w.e.f. 16th December, 2002 subject to the contlitions stipulated in the order. However, the payment already made to the employees should not be recovered from them for the period earlier to 16th December, 2002. [Paras 6, 7] [876- B H; 877-A-E] 2. A perusal of letter dated 6th January, 2003 from the C Government of India to NABARD would show that the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of RBBs was not favoured by the banks and the NABARD which consensus was agreed to by the Government of India thereby effectively declining the grant of computer D increment to the employees/officers of the RRB. The decision of the Government was not in question before the High Court in their writ petitions. Therefore, there is no reason to allow the employees to challenge the said decision in these proceedings when the High Court did not have an occasion to examine the matter in the writ petitions heard and disposed of by it. Since the Government's decision denies the benefit of computer increments, the direction issued by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench in appeal to the extent requiring the respondent-bank to grant the said benefit cannot be sustained. [Paras 8 and 9] [877-G-H; 878-A-B- D-H] South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Coordination Committee E F of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union 2001 (1) G SCC 101; All India Regional Rural Bank Officers Federation and Ors. v. Govt. of India and Ors. 2002 (3) sec 554, referred to. Case Law Reference: 2001 (1) sec 101 referred to Para 2 H A 87 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. ... 2002 (3) sec 554 referred to " Para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION : Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 4.2.2003 of the High B Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 84 of 2003. WITH C.A. No. 4483 of 2003. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Rakesh Dwivedi, S.B. Upadhyay, c ·Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, .Mohit Abraham, T.S. Sabarish, Tannushree Mukherjee (for K.L. Mehta & Co.), K.T. Anantharam, Mukti Choudhary, Rahul Dua, Ankit Dalela, Dr. R.N. Upadhya (for P.V. Yogeswaran) Kumud Lata Das, Rashmi Malhotra, Shalinder Saini (for S.N. Terdal for the appearing D parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave arise out of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby LPA No.84 of 2003 filed by the appellant-bank has E been dismissed in limine and the order passed by a Single Bench of that Court allowing W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.