V.Veerabhaskaran v. State Bank of India

service with the Indian Military like the petitioner, with effectfrom the date when the pay scale of Kesavan.D., was fixed and pay allthe arrears of wages.Writ Petition No.30244 of 2004 is filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the concerned records from the respondent, quash theorder of the respondent dated 13.7.2004 bearing OAD No.419 andconsequently direct the respondent to fix the pay scale of thepetitioner on par with his immediate junior Kesavan.D., who is alsoEx-Serviceman, who had joined the respondent bank after renderingservice with the Indian Military like the petitioner, with effectfrom the date when the pay scale of Kesavan.D., was fixed and pay allthe arrears of wages.Writ Petition No.30245 of 2004 is filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the concerned records from the respondent, quash theorder of the respondent dated 13.7.2004 bearing OAD No.418 andconsequently direct the respondent to fix the pay scale of thepetitioner on par with his immediate junior U.Kalaivanan, who is alsoEx-Serviceman, who had joined the respondent bank after renderingservice with the Indian Military like the petitioner, with effectfrom the date when the pay scale of U.Kalaivanan was fixed and payall the arrears of wages.For Petitioner inall W.Ps. : Mr.Balan HaridasFor Respondent in all W.Ps. : Mr.K.SankaranCOMMON ORDERWrit Petition No.30242 of 2004 is filed to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent inOAD No.420 dated 13.7.2004, quash the same and direct the respondentto fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with his immediatejunior U.Kalaivanan, who is also Ex-Serviceman, who had joined therespondent bank after rendering service with the Indian Military likethe petitioner, with effect from the date when the pay scale ofU.Kalaivanan was fixed and pay all the arrears of wages.2. Writ Petition No.30243 of 2004 is filed to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent inOAD No.417 dated 13.7.2004, quash the same and direct the respondentto fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with his immediatejunior Kesavan.D., who is also Ex-Serviceman, who had joined therespondent bank after rendering service with the Indian Military like https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner, with effect from the date when the pay scale ofKesavan.D., was fixed and pay all the arrears of wages.3. Writ Petition No.30244 of 2004 is filed to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent inOAD No.419 dated 13.7.2004, quash the same and direct the respondentto fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with his immediatejunior Kesavan.D., who is also Ex-Serviceman, who had joined therespondent bank after rendering service with the Indian Military likethe petitioner, with effect from the date when the pay scale ofKesavan.D., was fixed and pay all the arrears of wages.4. Writ Petition No.30245 of 2004 is filed to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondentin, OAD No.418, dated 13.7.2004, quash the same and direct therespondent to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with hisimmediate junior U.Kalaivanan, who is also Ex-Serviceman, who hadjoined the respondent bank after rendering service with the IndianMilitary like the petitioner, with effect from the date when the payscale of U.Kalaivanan was fixed and pay all the arrears of wages.5. The petitioner Veerabhaskaran, is an Ex-serviceman retiredfrom Military service on 1.8.1994. According to the affidavit filed,petitioner Veerabhaskaran was drawing salary as was fixed by theFourth Central Pay Commission. On retirement, the petitioner appliedto the respondent bank and was appointed as Control Room Operator(Clerical Category) by an order dated 27.3.1998. Respondent bankfixed the pay of the petitioner Veerabhaskaran as follows:-Sl.No.Pay ParticularsSalary in MilitaryServiceSalary fixed in BankService1BasicRs.1,275/-Rs.1,750/-2Class PayRs. 45/-(Spl.Pay)Rs. 108/-3D.A.Rs.1,373/-Rs.1,120/704Good Service FRs. 148/- Spl.A.Rs. 70/-5Interim ReliefRs. 100/- -- TotalRs.2,941/-Rs.3,048/706. The petitioner D.Moses, is an Ex-serviceman retired fromMilitary service on 1.7.1994. According to the affidavit filed,petitioner D.Moses was drawing salary as was fixed by the FourthCentral Pay Commission. On retirement, the petitioner applied to therespondent bank and was appointed as Fireman cum Guard (Sub OrdinateCategory) by an order dated 26.6.2000. Respondent bank fixed thepay of the petitioner D.Moses as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.Pay ParticularsSalary in MilitaryServiceSalary fixed in BankService1BasicRs.1,070/-Rs.2,750/-2Class PayNot furnished Rs. 207/-3D.A.Not furnished Rs. 794/84 TotalNot furnished Rs.3,751/847. The petitioner D.George Victor, is an Ex-serviceman retiredfrom Military service on 1.12.1994. According to the affidavitfiled, petitioner D.George Victor was drawing salary as was fixed bythe Fourth Central Pay Commission. On retirement, the petitionerapplied to the respondent bank and was appointed as Fireman cum Guard(Sub Ordinate Category) by an order dated 28.6.2000. Respondentbank fixed the pay of the petitioner D.George Victor as follows:-Sl.No.Pay ParticularsSalary in MilitaryServiceSalary fixed in BankService1BasicRs.1,119/-Rs.2,750/-2Class PayRs. 15/-(Spl.Pay)Rs. 207/-3D.A.Rs.1,293/-Rs. 965/164Interim ReliefRs. 100/- --TotalRs.2,527/-Rs.3,922/168. The petitioner S.Gerald Vincent, is an Ex-serviceman retiredfrom Military service on 31.5.1992. According to the affidavitfiled, petitioner S.Gerald Vincent was drawing salary as was fixed bythe Fourth Central Pay Commission. On retirement, the petitionerapplied to the respondent bank and was appointed as Control RoomOperator (Clerical Category) by an order dated 23.6.1998.Respondent bank fixed the pay of the petitioner S.Gerald Vincent asfollows:-Sl.No.Pay ParticularsSalary in MilitaryServiceSalary fixed in BankService1BasicRs.1,205/-Rs.1,750/-2Class PayNot furnishedRs. 70/-3D.A.Rs. 856/-Rs.1,234/88TotalRs.2,061/-Rs.3,054/889. After retirement from Military service and joining the bankservice, according to the petitioners, the Fifth Central PayCommission recommendations were implemented, whereby persons who werestill working in Indian Military service had the benefit of revised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scale of pay. Some of the Military staff who retired after theimplementation of the Fifth Pay Commission joined the service of therespondent bank and their salaries were fixed based on the last drawnpay in the Indian Military Service as in the case of the petitioners.The petitioners realised that the juniors who retired from Militaryservice and joined the respondent bank later are getting higher scaleof pay and the petitioners who were seniors in the Military serviceand also seniors in the respondent bank service were receiving lesserpay. Therefore, they made representations through proper channel tothe respondent bank stating that the juniors working in therespondent bank after discharge from Military service are drawinghigher scale of pay in the various cadres and the petitioners arereceiving far less and therefore, there is an anomaly, consequentlyprejudice. Petitioners, therefore, requested the respondent bank tostep up the pay of the petitioners to bring it on par with that ofthe juniors on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Suchrepresentations were considered by the respondent bank and by theimpugned proceedings dated 13.7.2004, the plea for stepping up thepay was rejected and the reasons given in the impugned order, whichis brief but succinct, is as follows:-"Please refer your letter dated 10.02.2004 onthe above subject.02. We have examined in detail regarding the'pay anomaly' referred to in your letter, i.e.,junior employees drawing higher pay than thesenior employees. As you are aware, the fitmentof pay for Ex-servicemen joining the Bank is donethrough protection of pay plus D.A. drawn by himat the time of the release from Armed forces, asper Govt. guidelines. Accordingly, the fitment ofyour pay as well as those Ex-servicemen who joinedthe Bank subsequently was done, based on the aboveprinciple. It is possible that the Ex-servicemenwho joined the Bank later, got the benefit of the5th Pay Commission pay revision and consequentlytheir pay was higher when they joined the Bank,resulting in higher fitment in the Bank. It isapparent that the anomaly as referred to in yourletter is due to the implementation of 5th PayCommission Report and further advise that thebenefits of 5th Pay Commission cannot be extendedto a person who has retired from the army service,before the implementation of 5th Pay Commissionand hence we are unable to accede to yourrequest."All the four orders are similar as above. Aggrieved by this, presentwrit petitions have been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,petitioners Mr.V.Veerabhaskaran and Mr.S.Gerald Vincent had put inmore number of years of service in Military and after retirement fromMilitary, they have joined the respondent bank and are seniors to thesubsequent entrants, viz., one Mr.U.Kalaivannan and one Mr.D.JohnKennedy in the clerical cadre and Mr.K.Chandrasekar,Mr.S.Sounderrajan and Mr.D.Kesavan, in the subordinate cadre. Inrespect of the petitioners Mr.D.Moses and Mr.George Victor, they areseniors to the subsequent entrants, viz., one Mr.D.Kesavan,S.Soundarrajan, Mr.Moorthy and Mr.A.Joseph. At the time of entryof the above stated persons who joined the services of therespondent bank subsequent to the Petitioners, the pay fixed by therespondent bank is much higher than the pay drawn by the petitioners.The Juniors were getting higher salary than the seniors for equalwork done. The petitioners knowing that the differentiation in thefixation of pay is consequent to the implementation of the Fifth PayCommission, have come to this Court seeking the remedy to step uptheir pay so as to set right the anomaly as above. 11. The respondent bank on notice have filed a counter-affidavit stating that the bank is bound by the circular inF.No.2/8/78-SCT(B) dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India,Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (BankingDivision), New Delhi. The Circular is addressed to the Chairman andManaging Directors of 20 Nationalised Banks and Chairman and ManagingDirectors of other banks. The Circular has been issued in partialmodification of the guidelines already issued in the years 1980 and1982 and it deals with fixation of pay for Ex-Servicemen reemployedin Public Sector Banks.12. Prior to 28.1.1983, the pay protection was given takinginto consideration the total emoluments (i.e.), pay plus D.A. lastdrawn by the Ex-Servicemen before their retirement from Armed Forces.On and from 28.1.1983, the modified Circular reads as follows and thesame is set out in para 2 of the Circular:-"2. In partial modification of theguidelines, conveyed through the aforesaidletters, it has been decided that:(i) In respect of ex-servicemen absorbed inbank's service prior to September 1978, if norecoveries were made on account of pension andpension equivalent of gratuity in excess ofRs.125/- p.m., such recovery may not be made withretrospective effect. However, in future theadjustment of pension will be made in accordancewith the Department of Expenditure OM No.18(34)-EIII(B)/57 dated 25.11.1958 (copy enclosed) read https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with IBA's circular No.PD/76/589/865 dated28.4.1982.(ii) The pay fixation in the case of ex-servicemen who joined Bank's service after therevision of pay scales in September, 78, willhowever be on the basis of protection of "pay"(instead of 'pay + DA') drawn by them prior toretirement. In other words, their pay fixationwill be in accordance with the following officememorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance,Dept. of Expenditure:1.OM No.18(34)-E III(B)/57 dated 25.11.19582.OM No.7(34)-E III(B)/62 dated 16.1.19643.OM No.5(14)-E III(B)/77 dated 19.7.1978"(emphasis supplied)In other words with effect from 28.1.1983, the pay fixation of theEx-servicemen who join the respondent bank will be on the basis ofthe pay drawn by them prior to retirement instead of Pay + D.A.,which was applied earlier. In terms of the above said Circular, thepetitioner in each one of the cases have been granted the benefit ofpay protection on the basic pay drawn in the Military service. 13. In the case of the petitioner Mr.Veerabhaskaran, his basicpay in the Military service was at Rs.1,275/- whereas the bank fixedhis basic pay at Rs.1,750/-. In the case of Mr.S.Gerald Vincent,his basic pay drawn in the Military service was Rs.1,205/- whereasthe bank fixed his basic pay at Rs.1,750/-. In the case ofMr.D.Moses, his basic pay drawn in the Military service was atRs.1070/- whereas the bank fixed his basic pay at Rs.2,750/-. In thecase of Mr.D.George Victor, his basic pay drawn in the Militaryservice was at Rs.1,119/- whereas the bank fixed his basic pay atRs.2,750/-. The total emoluments including D.A. and other allowancesat the time of entry into the bank has been done in terms of theCircular dated 28.1.1983 referred to above. 14. According to the respondent, at the time of entry ofMr.U.Kalaivanan, Mr.D.John Kennedy, Mr.K.Chandrasekaran andMr.D.Kesavan, their basic pay was fixed in the bank on the basis ofthe last drawn basic pay in the Military service. In the samemanner, the basic pay of Mr.S.Soundarrajan, M.Moorthy and Mr.A.Josephwas also fixed. The anomaly as contended by the petitionersthemselves in their representations is because of the implementationof the Fifth Pay Commission whereby the junior officers got thebenefit of higher basic pay in the Military service and consequently,they are given the pay protection in terms of the Circular dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.1.1983. This factor has been explained in the impugnedproceedings of the bank. There is no other special reason for thebank to deny petitioners claim and the bank is bound by the Circularissued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department ofEconomic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. The bank cannot stepup the pay of the juniors assuming for a moment that the anomaly aspointed out by the petitioners is apparent on the face of it.15. In this case on facts, there is no dispute that the basicpay fixed on entry into bank service is on the basis of basic paydrawn in the Military service and the pay protection is granted interms of Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India,Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (BankingDivision), New Delhi for all persons. Petitioners have not pointedout any rule or provision of law that has been breached by therespondent bank. 16. Petitioners counsel relies upon various decisions of theCourt to state that the anomaly should be rectified as it is causingserious prejudice to the petitioners, inasmuch as the juniors arereceiving higher pay.17. Learned counsel for the petitioners' plea is that higherbasic pay fixed by the bank to the juniors will be arbitrary andopposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He furthersubmits that the petitioners and their juniors on the same cadre areperforming same duties and therefore, for equal work, they areentitled to equal pay. He relies upon Article 39(d) of theConstitution of India.18. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies the followingdecisions:-(i) Union of India and others – vs. - P.Jagdish and others reportedin 1997 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 701 to state that when thejuniors are getting higher slab of pay, the pay of the seniorsshould be stepped up to rectify anomaly keeping in mind theArticle 39(d) of the Constitution of India.(ii) Punjab State Electricity Board and others – vs. - Gurmail Singhreported in (2008)2 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 539 to state thatany anomaly in pay by a person holding higher post as against thehigher pay received by the person holding lower post can beinterfered by the Court.(iii) Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another – vs. - Punjab StateElectricity Board and others reported in (2009)3 Supreme CourtCases 94 to state the proposition that a senior cannot be paidlesser salary than his junior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. Per contra, Thiru K.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent bank relied upon the case in Union of India – vs. -S.Soundara Rajan reported in (1980)3 Supreme Court Cases 125 andsubmitted that in cases where there is an anomaly in pay due to somepeculiar circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a breach ofArticle 14 of the Constitution. He referred to para 4 of thedecision and it reads as follows:-"It is equally important to remember thewell established proposition that there cannotbe a case of discrimination merely becausefortuitous circumstances arising out of somepeculiar developments on situations createadvantages or disadvantages for one group or theother although in the earlier stages they were,more or less, alike. If one class has not beensingled out for special treatment, the merecircumstances of advantages accruing to one orthe other cannot result in breach of Article 14of the Constitution. On this basis we wouldagree with the reasoning of the High Court ofMadras and so declare the law correctly." He also relied upon the case in State of Andhra Pradesh and others –vs. - G.Sreenivasa Rao and others reported in (1989)2 Supreme CourtCases 290 and stated that even though Article 39(d) of theConstitution of India provides equal pay for equal work, it cannot besaid that in all cases, the principle will apply, because thefixation of pay for one or other person may depend on variousfactors, like statutory rules, executive instructions and otherexternal factors as in the present case the implementation of theFifty Pay Commission, which will play a major role for deciding howthe pay will be fixed at the time of entry into banking service.Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they should be giventhe benefit of stepping up of pay on the principle of "equal pay forequal work". There are certain factors and facts which are not indispute which disentitle the petitioners from pay parity from that oftheir juniors as in the present case. The observation of the ApexCourt in the aforesaid decision will be squarely applicable to thefacts of the present case. Paras 13 and 15 reads as follows:-"13. The factual basis in all these appealsis identical. The facts clearly show that inevery case the pay fixation of the junior was doneunder the Fundamental Rules and there werejustifiable reasons for fixing the junior at ahigher pay than his seniors in the cadre. It wasnot disputed that the said pay fixation was inconformity with fundamental Rules. Neitherbefore us nor before the Courts below the validity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Fundamental Rules were challenged by any of theparties. Without considering the scope of theseRules and without adverting to the reasons forfixing the juniors at a higher pay, the High Courtand the Tribunal have in an omnibus manner come tothe conclusion that whenever and for whateverreasons a junior is given higher pay the doctrineof 'equal pay for equal work' is violated and theseniors are entitled to the same pay.""15. "Equal pay for equal work" does notmean that all the members of a cadre must receivethe same pay packet irrespective of theirseniority, source of recruitment, educationalqualifications and various other incidents ofservice. When a single running pay scale isprovided in a cadre the constitutional mandate ofequal pay for equal work is satisfied. Ordinarilygrant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie bearbitrary but if there are justifiable grounds indoing so the seniors cannot invoke the equalitydoctrine. To illustrate, when pay fixation isdone under valid statutory rules/executiveinstructions, when persons recruited fromdifferent sources are given pay protection, whenpromotee from lower cadre or a transferee fromanother cadre is given pay protection, when asenior is stopped at efficiency bar, when advanceincrements are given for experience/passing atest/acquiring higher qualifications or incentivefor efficiency; are some of the eventualitieswhen a junior may be drawing higher pay than hisseniors without violating the mandate of equal payfor equal work. The differentia on these groundswould be based on intelligible criteria which hasrational nexus with the object sought to beachieved. We do not therefore find any goodground to sustain the judgments of the HighCourt/Tribunal."20. The Court, having considered the anomaly as pointed out bythe petitioners, and on considering the Ministry's Circular and thedecisions of the Apex Court, is not inclined to accept petitioners'plea. On facts, there is no dispute that the Petitioners' basicpay drawn at the Military service was on the basis of the pay fixedduring the Fourth Pay Commission. Petitioners after retirement fromMilitary service applied for reemployment in the respondent bank andthey were issued with individual appointment orders and their pay wasfixed based on the Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Governmentof India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Banking Division), New Delhi protecting their basic pay at the timeof entry into the bank. In this case, the basic pay fixed by thebank is marginally higher than the basic pay drawn in the militaryservice. The petitioners are not aggrieved at the time of entryinto the respondent bank service that there is an anomaly in the pay.The dispute or the issue arose only when the juniors who had thebenefit of higher basic pay consequent to the implementation of FifthPay Commission, entered into the respondent bank service by way ofreemployment after retirement from the Military service. Till suchtime, petitioners had no grievance that the Circular dated 28.1.1983issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department ofEconomic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi is bad, arbitrary orunreasonable. 21. The grievance as has been pointed out by the petitionersis because of the anomaly consequent to the higher pay drawn by thejuniors who had the benefit of higher basic pay fixed consequent tothe implementation of the Fifty Pay Commission which has beenexplained in the impugned proceedings and that has been rightlypointed out by the petitioners in their own representations. Thebank is bound by the Circular dated 28.1.1983 issued by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of EconomicAffairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. The bank unilaterally cannotrefix the pay from time to time in the case of one or other personswho claim that his pay should be fixed on par with the another personin the same cadre. The fixaton of basic pay will be at the time ofentry of the individual concerned and that is the purport of theCircular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministryof Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), NewDelhi. The respondent bank was justified in rejecting the claim ofthe Petitioners for stepping up the pay as it would result confusionin revising or stepping up the pay as and when new entrants join onreemployment if their basic pay is higher. 22. As far as the decision in the case of Union of India andothers – vs. - P.Jagdish and others reported in 1997 Supreme CourtCases (L & S) 701, relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioners is concerned, it is a case where special pay was grantedto certain identified post involving arduous nature of work in thefeeder cadre of senior clerks. Some of the senior clerks who werepromoted as Head Clerks were aggrieved stating that on promotionthey were getting lesser pay than their juniors who had the benefitof the Special Pay. It is not disputed that the Head Clerks whosought for pay parity belongs to the same cadre and it is only at thetime of promotion that the anomaly was noticed and the Court heldthat they are entitled to stepping up the pay on parity with that ofthe juniors. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, we are notdealing with the case of promotion from a common cadre and therefore,the question of stepping up of pay for rectifying the anomaly doesnot arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others case (citedsupra) deals with time bound promotion to the higher scale of pay bya circular issued by Finance Department on 23.4.1990. Under thescheme, promotional scale was to be given to employees uponcompletion of 9/16 years of regular service. The revision in thescale of pay of LDCs was directed by an order dated 3.10.1990 witheffect from 1.1.1986. The said revision of scale of pay, however,was to be granted on the basis of total number of years of service asLDC in the said cadre. The same was, however, implemented in respectof three categories of employees, namely, who have not been grantedany promotion despite completion of minimum 10 years of service asLDC and Senior Clerk or five years of service as LDC and remaining ofthe LDCs not falling in the first two categories. The respondent inthat case sought for certain benefits after completing several yearsof service in the promotional post after completing several years ofservice in the lower cadre which was denied by the Department basedon certain circulars and scheme. The Apex Court noticed that certainbenefits granted under the scheme and the circular could be exercisedat a point of time and cannot be granted again and again. Paras 25and 26 of the decision reads as follows:-"25. We have also noticed hereinbefore thatanother finance circular was issued in 1992 with aview to remove the anomaly between scales of payof LDCs and UDCs. The option granted, however,was in respect of those who had been promotedbefore 1.1.1986. No such option was granted forthose who had been promoted after 1.1.1986. Itmay seem unfortunate but that was the legalposition. We would, however, assume that despiteabsence of such a circular, the employees couldgive an option on their own. Such an option couldbe exercised even while making a representationfor the purpose of consideration of the Board onthe ground of hardship. Unfortunately, therespondent herein thought it fit to opt for thepost of UDC as his induction post. Our attentionalthough has been drawn to the case of GurjantSingh, it is evident that in terms of FinanceCircular No.34/95 dated 31.10.1995, an employeewas entitled to get the benefit of one inductionpost only during his entire service. In thisbehalf, Regulation 13 is also significant in thesense that it was for the Board to fix scales ofpay to which we have adverted to hereinbefore. 26. The respondent, however, it will bearrepetition to state, by his letter dated 29.1.1996opted for 9 years' time-bound scale of UpperDivision Clerk from 9.7.1995 to which we have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adverted to hereto before. An employee given theoption to opt for one or the other induction postor one or the other scheme is supposed to know hisright or benefit. An employee cannot be permittedto opt for one or the other scheme again andagain. Schemes are framed for the benefit of theemployees ordinarily as a one-time measure. If byreason of a wrong option, an employee suffers, hehimself is to be blamed therefor and not theemployer." (emphasis supplied)In that case, the Apex Court considering the import of a circularand its binding nature on the parties, the respondent employee wasfound at fault. The Apex Court also observed in this case that therewas no challenge to the circular or to the scheme. The Apex Court,however, granted certain relief exercising its discretion underArticle 136 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners havingbenefitted by the Ministry's Circular cannot seek further relief onthe basis of subsequent events.24. In the present case, the Circular dated 28.1.1983 issuedby the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department ofEconomic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi has not beenchallenged, nor is it found to be at fault. Petitioners enjoyedthe benefit of the said Circular for basic pay fixation. Therefore,they cannot turn around to state that the benefits that accrues tothe juniors should be extended to them as well. The Circular dated28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi is aprotection to the individual concerned at the entry level and thatcannot be used as a ground to refix the scale of pay or to step upthe pay at the time of entry of a new person on the same cadre. 25. In the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal (cited supra) case itis stated that there was disparity in the scale of pay to some of thepersons on promotion and the said disparity on promotion was setright. In the present case, we are not concerned with the claim forpay parity in the promotional post. Each of the writ petitionersat the time of entry into the respondent bank service was given tothe benefit of pay protection. It is not the case of the Petitionersthat there is disparity in the promotional post of a common cadre.Hence, the decisions of the Apex Court will not apply to the facts ofthe present case. 26. On the contrary the two decisions cited by the learnedcounsel for the respondent bank clearly justified the stand taken bythe respondent bank. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others – vs. -G.Sreenivasa Rao and others reported in (1989)2 Supreme Court Cases290 (cited supra) the Apex Court in para 15 clearly held that equal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pay for equal work does not mean that all members of the cadre mustreceive the same pay packet automatically. Though the principle isaccepted the Apex Court held that if the pay fixation is done underthe valid statutory rules, executive instructions, it will apply.In this case, the pay protection is given as in the present case by aCircular dated 28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministryof Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), NewDelhi, that cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. TheApex Court was also aware of the fact that in certain eventualities,a junior may be drawing higher pay than senior staff affecting themandate of the equal pay. This is one such case.27. The object of the circular is to ensure that persons of Ex-Service Military do get the benefit of pay fixation at entry intocivil services and that has been protected by the Circular dated28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. Thisis based on the objective that persons from Military service onretirement, when they enter into civil service do not get lesser paythan what they received in Military service. The Petitioners cannotclaim further benefits like stepping up of pay in the absence of anyspecific rule or circular to that effect. The anomaly as has beenpointed out by the petitioners was because of the implementation ofthe Fifth Pay Commission. Therefore, the plea of the petitionersthat the juniors drawing higher scale of pay is arbitrary is rejected.28. For all the above said reasons, I find no reason tointerfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondent bankrejecting the petitioners' claim, bound by the Circular dated28.1.1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi. TheWrit Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order asto costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Office Administration, Local Head Office, Office Administration Department, "Circletop House", Aparna Complex, No.16, College Lane, Chennai-600 006. + 4 c.cs. to Mr. Balan Haridas, Advocate. S.R.Nos.68915, 68917,68918 & 68919.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. K. Sankaran, Advocate. S.R.No.68394. Common Order in W.P.Nos.30242 to 30245 of 2004RSI (CO)GSK 21.01.2010.