UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 21-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM AND ORS. 
JANUARY 21, 1998 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service law : 
Bank Officers-Posted at North-Eastern region-Communication dated 
J.9.1983-Grant of special adhoc and temporary incentives to employees on C 
transfer to the region-Incentive not made available to direct recruits posted 
for the first time in the region-High Court holding the benefits to direct 
recruits also-Held, grant of incentives to promotee officers, justified-Dire;:! 
recruits cannot be placed on the same pedestal with the officers working in 
the Bank-No interference with policy for introduction of incentives- D 
Communication neither discriminatory" nor violative of Article I 4-
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14. 
The Central Government, vide a communication dated September 1, 
1983, provided certain special adhoc and temporary incentives to the employees 
posted in North-Eastern region. The special adhoc incentives were granted E 
with a view that the officers accept their posting in the hardship stations in 
North Eastern region. Pursuant to the above communication, the appellant 
Bank issued circulars adopting the proposal for grant of incentives. As the 
incentives were not applicable to the directly recruited officers of the Bank, 
they filed a writ petition in High Court. The High Court held that the benefits 
F 
which were enjoyed by the transferred officers of the Bank could also be 
available to direct recruits. Hence the present appeal by the Bank. 
The contention of the appellant was that a directly recruited probationer 
and a promotee officer are unequal and could not be treated alike. A promotee 
officer was an experienced hand unlike a direct recruit. 
The contention of the respondents was that denying the incentives to 
directly recruited officers. of the Bank posted in the North-Eastern region 
~· 
hailing from different parts of the country was violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution of India. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
233 
G 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] I S.C.R. '
A 
HELD: 1.1. Not granting incentives to the directly recruited officers 
posted for the first time in the Branches in the North-Eastern region is 
""-._ 
neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
1239-D] 
1.2. Direct recruits cannot be placed on the same pedestal as the 
B officers already working in the Bank and being transferred to the North-
Eastern region. Certain incentives are necessarily required to be given to 
the officers of the Bank so that they accept their transfer to hardship 
stations in North-Eastern region for the proper functioning of the Branches 
of the Bank. 1239-C] 
C 
1.3. The incentives which have been given to the transferred officers 
are not such as can be granted to direct recruits posted for the first time 
in the service of the Bank except one of the incentives being ad hoc, out of 
turn increase in salary during the duration of the posting in the North-
Eastern region. The directly recruited officers, as far as their first posting 
is concerned, are a class with themselves. For proper functioning of its 
D branch, the Bank also needs experienced hands. Howsoever good a direct 
I 
recruit may be, he certainly has no previous experience in the working of 
the appellant Bank. [238-D] 
2. The'policy devised by the Bank for introduction of incentives to its 
transferred employees when it has taken into consideration the prevalent 
E circumstances in the North-Eastern region and the reluctance of its 
experienced officers to be transferred to that region, does not warrant any 
interference. 1239-E] 
F 
Reserve Bank of India v. Reserve Bank of India Staff Officers Association 
& Ors. [19911 4 SCC, 132, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 404 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.9i of the Gauhati High Court 
in Civil Rule No. 2058of1990. 
G 
M.N. Krishnamani and Sudarsh Menon for the Appellant. 
' P.K. Goswami, Kailash Vasdev and C.K. Sasi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. W ADHW A, J. The appellant bank is aggrieved by the judgment 
H dated May 24, 1991 of the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. MEENAKSHI SUND A RAM [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 
235 
allowing the writ petition of the respondents and holding that the benefits A 
which are being enjoyed by the transferred officers of the bank to North-
,)-
Eastern

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