PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI & ANR. versus KRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 28-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
1. 
A 
PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI & ANR. 
V. 
KRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR. 
NOVEMBER 28, 2007 
B 
._.. 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA,JJ.) 
Service Law-Parity in, allowance and benefits-Special 
allowance to 'cashier in charge of cash '-Industry Level Settlement 
c between sponsor banks and their Associations giving special allowance 
of Rs.189 p.m. whereas Bipartite Settlement between SB! and its 
federation giving Rs. 3801-p.m.-Award by Tribunal that employees 
of RRB entitled to claim parity in pay scale with counterparts in sponsor 
' 
bank-RRB 's Circular that no comparable post of clerk or cashier 
D holding keys as Joint Custodian in SBL as per instructions of the 
Government 'cashier in charge' holding keys to be paid Rs. 1891-
Challenge to-Courts below holding Rs 3801- p.m. to be paid as 
• 
allowance-On appeal, held: National tribunal applied principle of 
I .. 
parity and not functional similarity and also did not examine post 
E wise-It did not apply principle of 'equal pay for equal work '-Jn SB! 
and sponsored bank there are posts of cash officer and clerk cum 
cashier who performs distinct functions-Cash Officer holds custody 
of cash and when cashier performs additional function of cash officer 
they are paid allowance of Rs. 3801- which is called officiating 
F allowance and not keys allowance-In RRB cash in charge is workman 
whereas in sponsor bank, he is an Officer. 
The employees of Regional Rural Banks filed writ petitions 
challenging their salary structure. The dispute was referred to the 
National Tribunal. 54 (sponsor) banks and their Association signed 
G 'Industry Level Fifth Bipartite Settlement' and it was agreed that 
,,. 
the employees of these 54 (sponsor) Banks would be paid special 
allowance for clerical staff and 'Cashier in charge of cash' would be 
paid special allowance ofRs.189 per month. Thereafter, the State 
Bank of India and its federation entered into 'Fifth Bipartite 
H 
632 
) 
·~ 
PERSONALMANAGER,SBI v. KRISHNAGRAMEENA 
633 
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION 
Settlement' and it was agreed that the workmen would be paid A 
revised functional allowance and each 'cashier in charge of cash' 
would be paid Rs.380/- per month. The National Tribunal passed an 
award that the officers and employees ofRRBs' would be entitled 
to claim parity with their counterparts in the sponsor bank in the 
matter of pay scale. Pursuant thereto, Pay Equation Committee was B 
constituted and it recommended that 'allowances and benefits' of 
Bipartite Settlement of the sponsored bank were to be extended to 
the RRBs' employees. Thereafter, Government oflndia instructed 
all sponsor banks and RRBs for implementing the tribunal's award 
and recommendation of the Pay Equation Committee. 
C 
It was appellant's case that there was no post of 'Joint 
Custodian of Keys' in the sponsor bank-State Bank oflndia and 
the RRBs and also appellant no 2 issued a circular stating that' Joint 
custodian of Keys' (junior/senior clerk) would be eligible for a cash 
allowance of Rs. 380/- per month. Another RRB-Nagarjuna Gramin 
Bank-sponsored by appellant No.1 issued a circular that there was 
n· 
no comparable post of clerk or cashier holding keys as Joint 
Custodian in SBI and as per Government oflndia's instructions, 
'cashier in charge' holding keys would be entitled to allowance of 
Rs.189/- per month and not Rs.380/- per month. The appellant No. E 
2-RRB also issued a similar circular. Respondent-Krishna 
Grameena Bank Employees Union filed writ petition for quashing 
the circular issued by the appellant No. 2 on the ground that Fifth 
Bipartite Settlement provided that the said allowance was to be paid 
at the rate of Rs.380/- per month as cash allowance and joint F 
custodian allowance was to be paid to the employees of sponsor bank 
and there should be parity of allowance of the employees ofRRB 
as per the National Tribunal's Award. Subsequently, NABARD 
issued a Circular with the approval of the Government oflndia to 
all sponsor banks including SBI stating that RRBs' special allowance G 
of only Rs.I 89/- would be payable. The Single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent. In writ appeal, the 
order of the single Judge was upheld. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
A 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
HELD: 1.1. The National Tribunal did not state anything about 
the functional similarity and they also did not examine the ques

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.