India, Ram Bagh Circle, Jaipur v. The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Judgment

1. The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur through Presiding Officer.

2. Reserve Bank Employees Association Jaipur C/o Reserve Bank of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner

: Mr. Sanjay Shrivastava Advocate with Mr. Adeet Shrivastava Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dharmendra Jain Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

11.08.2025

20.08.2025

1. Petitioner, Regional Director and Chief General Manager of Reserve Bank of India has assailed legality and validity of award dated 02.04.2003 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, reference with regard to entitlement of workman Naval Kishore Gupta attached to respondent-association for advance increment on acquiring higher qualification has been answered against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that the workman Naval Kishore Gupta, who is said to be [2025:RJ-JP:32212] (2 of 6) [CW-5933/2004] associated with the respondent-association was initially appointed on 15.02.1984 on the post of Clerk/Coin-Note Examiner, Grade-II. During his service tenure, the workman passed graduation examination on 05.07.1995. As per the respondent-association, he was although entitled for two advance increments as per the bipartite settlement arrived at between the Management and the Association, yet such benefit was not extended to him. Therefore, industrial dispute was raised by the Association on behalf of the workman, which was ultimately referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government and the terms of reference were as under: “Whether the action of the Management of Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur of not granting advance increment to Shri Naval Kishore Gupta, Cone Note Examiner after passing his graduation from the year 1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”

3. Claim put forth on behalf of the workman was opposed by the petitioner contending therein that initially settlement between the Association and the Bank took place in the year 1970 where the provisions were admittedly there for awarding two advance increments/special pay to the graduates in the pay scale. Such settlement was followed by subsequent settlements executed in the years 1979, 1989, 1995 and 1997. In the instant case, the settlement arrived at in the year 1995 was applicable and it was a clear and explicit term in the settlement that although in normal circumstances, the workman would be allowed two advance increments on acquiring degree of graduation, yet in the cases where the workman had already reached to the maximum of the pay scale of Clerk-cum-Coin and Note Examiner, Grade-II, then in such case, on account of non-availability of any further increment in the pay scale, it was not possible to grant two [2025:RJ-JP:32212] (3 of 6) [CW-5933/2004] advance increments on acquiring higher education, therefore, the provisions were made for granting special pay.

4. It has been submitted that as per the settlement, after reaching the maximum of the pay scale, the workman shall be eligible for Special Pay subject to entitlement, which at the relevant time was Rs. 120/- after one year, Rs. 240, after two years, up to maximum Rs. 600 after five years and it was also prescribed that Special Pay shall be subject to limit of Rs. 240 maximum for graduates.

5. It was submitted that since the concerned workman Naval Kishore Gupta reached at the maximum of the pay scale on

24.05.1997 and after reaching at the maximum of the pay scale on 05.07.1997, he acquired degree of graduation. Therefore, in the light of settlement which took place in the year 1995, grant of further two advance increments in the pay scale was not possible. Accordingly, as per the settlement, benefit of Special Pay as admissible to the petitioner was given.

6. After recording of evidence of both the sides, the Tribunal answered the reference in affirmative in favour of the respondent-association and against the petitioner and held that action of the Management in not granting advance increments to the workman Naval Kishore Gupta even on clearing degree of graduation in the year 1997 was unjustified and the workman was entitled to get two advance increments as per the settlement from the date of passing of his graduation examination, i.e.

05.07.1997.

7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that impugned award dated 02.04.2003 passed by the Tribunal is de- [2025:RJ-JP:32212] (4 of 6) [CW-5933/2004] hors the settlement. It was submitted that once the settlement has been arrived at between the Management and the Association, then the concerned workman is entitled for the benefits strictly in accordance with the provisions of the settlement and the Tribunal could although enforce the settlement, yet cannot grant any benefit beyond the terms of the settlement.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Association, while opposing the writ petition, supported the impugned award and submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is within the narrow confine of terms of settlement. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned award. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation and Another, (1999) 2 SCC

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

10. It is undisputed fact between the parties that there is settlement, duly executed between the Management and the Association for regulating the pay scales of concerned workmen. It is also not disputed that on the date of acquiring degree of graduation, the petitioner has already reached at the maximum stage of pay scale admissible to the post of Clerk/Coin-Note Examiner Grade-II. Hence, after reaching at the maximum of the pay scale, no further increments/advance increments is admissible under the settlement. [2025:RJ-JP:32212] (5 of 6) [CW-5933/2004]

11. It has been brought to notice of this Court that as per settlement, the Additional Special Pay (ASP) of Rs. 385 was given to the concerned workman with effect from 01.11.1997. After awarding such Additional Special Pay, on 25.05.1998, in addition to aforesaid Additional Special Pay, Personal Allowance (PA) of Rs. 550 and Fixed Personal Allowance (FPA) of Rs. 500 was awarded with effect from 25.05.1998. Later on, apart from above benefits of ASP, PA and FPA, with effect from 25.05.1999, Rs. 175 under the head of Post Scale Special Pay (PSSP) was also awarded to the concerned workman. Such benefits were given on account of clearing higher education of graduation under the head of benefits in lieu of advance increments, which would have been admissible to the workman, had he not reached at the maximum of the pay scale. Such benefits of ASP, PA and FPA and PSSP could not have been given to other persons holding the similar post, yet did not acquire higher qualification. Hence, there is no arbitrariness on the part of the petitioner-Management and the workman was also not subjected to any discrimination, nor was he deprived of any benefit of the settlement.

12. The decision in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation and Another(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-Association is distinguishable on facts for the reason that in the said case, Management had failed to enforce the settlement arrived at between the Union and the Management whereas in the instant case, I find that settlement has been well enforced and duly applied by the Management. [2025:RJ-JP:32212] (6 of 6) [CW-5933/2004]

13. In the light of foregoing discussion, writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, allowed and award dated 02.04.2003 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur is quashed and set aside.

14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. MANOJ NARWANI (ANAND SHARMA),J