STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M.R. GANESH BABU AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 16-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
• 
' 
' 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
M.R. GANESH BABU AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, RUMA PAL 
AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of 
Service) Order, 1979. 
Service Law 
A 
B 
c 
Principle of equal pay for equal work-Applicability of-Equal pay 
depends upon nature of work-Mere volume of work is not sufficient-Value 
judgment of those charged withfvcing the scale of pay is relevant-S'fch value D 
judgment made reasonably on intelligible criterion having rational nexus with 
object of differentiation does not amount to discrimination. 
State Bank of India-Junior management cadre-Generalists Officers 
viz. Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers- Specialists officers viz. 
Assistant Law Officers, Security Officers, Assistant Engineers, Technical E 
Officers, Medical Officers and R.D.Os.-Common pay scale-Apart from pay 
scale benefit of higher salary on initial appointment-Given to Generalists 
Officers and denied to Specialists Officers-Subsequently benefit extended to 
R.D. Os. on the basis of Expert Commillee Recommendations-Claim for benefit 
by other categories of Specialists Officers-Rejection by Bank-Held on facts 
value judgment of Bank neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. 
F 
The officers of the State Bank of India are classified and categorised 
into four grades. This appeal relates to the Junior Management Grade which 
consists of Probationary Officers, Trainee Officers and other officers who are 
technical persons or specialists such as Assistant Law Officer, Security Officer, 
Assistant Engineer, Technical Officer, Medical Officer and Rural G 
Development Officer (R.D.Os.) The officers of the Bank, who generally look 
after the banking business are known as Generalist OITtcers whereas the others 
are called as Specialist Officers who advise and undertake the work of the 
Bank in their respective field of specialization. Before the year 1979, all the 
149 
H 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A officers, Generalist as well as Specialist, were entitled to the pay scale 
prescribed for the Junior Management Grade. Apart from the pay scale which 
was common, the!' were also entitled to the benefit of higher starting salary 
by grant of advance increments. All the officers were granted four increments 
oil their initial appointment. In 1979 the appellant-Bank issued State Bank 
B of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 
1979. Under this Qrder, the benefit of higher starting pay was confined to 
Probationary and Trainee Officers i.e. Generalist Offices. R.D.Os. and other 
Specialist Officers such as Assistant law Officers, Security Officers, Assistant 
Engineers, etc. were not entitled to the benefit of higher starting pay. An 
Expert Committee set up by the bank found that R.D.Os. were required to 
C shoulder, by and large, the same duties and responsibilities as Probationary 
Officers or Trainee Officers so far as conducting agricultural advances work 
was concerned. Therefore, accepting the recommendations of the Committee 
the benefit of fitment of salary at the time of appointment was extended to 
R.D.Os. 
D 
The respondents were appointed as Technical Officers, Assistant 
Engineer (Civil) and Assistant Law Officers respectively between 1984 and 
1985. Since the benefit of additional increments was denied to them, they filed 
a writ petition before the High Court seeking benefit of additional increments 
from the date of their initial appointment as applicable,to Probationary and 
E Trainee Office..S. Their claim was that they performed the same duties and 
shoulder similar responsibilities as the R.D.Os. and therefore, they were 
entitled to the same benefit of additional increments an appointment as was 
extended to R.D.Os. 
A Single Judge of the High Court held that if a person working as 
F R.D.O. not opted for absorption continued under specialist category and any 
benefit was given to such of those RID.Os. the same was required to be given 
to persons who came under the specialist category. Therefore, it was a matter 
to be considered by the Bank keeping in view the duties and responsibilities 
of the petitioners which were comparable to the duties and responsibilities of 
the R.D.Os. The appeals preferred by the Appellant-Bank were dismissed by 
G a Division Bench. It held that the claim of officers under specialist cadre for 
grant of higher starting pay as was gi

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