The Nalanda Gramin Bank v. Rajesh Kumar

: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh No. 1, Advocate Mr. Ratan Kumar, Advocate - 3 - For the respondents 12/

09.04.2009 : Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gayanand Roy, Advocate. ------------- Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. On going through the final judgment and order dated 22nd August, 1997, passed in C.W.J.C. No.7979 of 1993, we find that the writ petition was disposed of in following terms: “Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners afresh and fix the pay of the employees/petitioners in the light of guideline as mentioned in Annexure-2. The respondents shall also take care while fixing the pay that pay should not be fixed less than what they were drawing. In view of directions and observations as indicated above, no recovery of any amount shall be made pursuant to the order, Annexure-1.” While challenging the said directions of the writ court as well as the order dated 26.4.2005, whereby the writ court dismissed the review petition leading to LPA No.656 of 2005, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have no difficulty in considering the grievance of the petitioners afresh and fixing pay of the employees/writ petitioners in the light of the guidelines as mentioned in Annexure-2 dated 22.2.1991 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi and shall take care while fixing the pay that their pay should not be less than what the employees were earlier drawing. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary for the appellants to also keep under consideration the directives and guidelines issued by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural - 4 - Development (NABARD) dated 20th March, 1993, contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in the writ application. On specific query by this court, whether the directives of the NABARD in Annexure-A will take away any of the advantages to the employees which may be available to them under Annexure-2, the stand of the appellants is that there will be no adverse impact on the employees and they will not be under any disadvantage even if the Bank also keeps under consideration the guidelines issued by the NABARD contained in Annexure-A. In view of such clear stand of the appellant that by permitting the appellants to also keep under consideration the directions of the NABARD dated 20th March, 1993 (Annexure-A), the employees/ writ petitioners shall not suffer any prejudice and their pay will not be adversely affected by that, we dispose of these L.P.As. by observing that while carrying out the directions of the writ court the appellants may also keep under consideration the letter of NABARD dated 20th March, 1993(Annexure-A) under consideration. Such consideration of Annexure-A, however, would not entitle the appellants to disregard the guidelines of the central government in Annexure-2 in any manner. JA/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)