STATE BANK OF INDIA & Anr. v. M.R. GANESH BABU & Ors.

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 given to the rural development officers, required consideration. Consequently it directed the Bank to consider the matter keeping in view the duties and responsibilities of the respondents which were comparable with the duties and responsibilities of the R.D.Os. H Against the decision of the High Court, State Bank of India preferred S.B.I. v. M.R. GANESH BABU 151 appeals before this Court. Pursuant to the liberty granted to this Court the A Bank considered the case of the respondents and by its order dated 3rd June, 2000 it rejected the respondents claim. It held that the duties and irresponsibilities of the respondents were not comparable to the duties and responsibilities of the R.D.Os. or the Probationary Officers and the Trainee Officers and, therefore, their claim for parity with them in salary fitment on B appointment cannot be accepted. However, with a view to avoiding future controversy the Court examined the correctness of the decision of the Appellant-Bank. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The decision taken by the Bank cannot be faulted on the C ground of its being either unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory and therefore judicial interference is inappropriate. [161-D)

2. R.D.Os. were given the benefit of advance increments on the basis of the report of an Expert Committee which justified their classification with D the generalist ofTicers, having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities shouldered by them. However, on consideration of the case of the respondents, the Bank has reached a different conclusion. The Bank has found that their duties and responsibilities are not the same as those of probationary Officers/ Trainee Officers/R.D.Os. (160-G) E It is no doubt true that the specialised officers render useful service and their valuable advice in the specialised fields is of great assistance to the bank in its banking operations. The ofTicers who belong to the generalist cadre, namely, the officers who actually conduct the banking operations and who take decisions in regard to all banking works are advised by the specialist officers. There can be no doubt that the service rendered by the specialist F officers is also valuable, but that is not to say that the degree of responsibility and reliability is the same as those of the Probationary Officers, the Trainee Officers, and the R.D.Os., who directly carry on the banking operations and are required to take crucial decisions based on the advice tendered by the specialist officers. The Bank has considered the nature of duties and G responsibilities of the various categories of officers and has reached bona fide decision that while generalist officers take all crucial decisions in banking operations with which they are directly linked, and are exposed to operational work and risk since the decision that they take bas significant effect on the functioning of the Bank and quality of its performance, the specialist officers are not exposed to such risks nor are they required to take decisions as vital H 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A as those to be taken by the generalist officers. They at best render advice in their specialist field. The degree of reliability and responsibility is not the same. It cannot be said that the value judgment of the Bank in this regard is either unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational. [160-H; 161-A-C)

3. It is well settled that applicability of principle of equal pay for equal B work must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work because there may be quality active difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those C who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different · D organisations, or even in the same organisation. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bonafide reasonably and rationally, is not open to interference by the Court. [158-F-H; 159-A) E 4 • .Since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be. [159-B) F