Mr. Moray's reliance upon the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work is, however, misplaced. He sought a parity in the pay scale
between officers placed at different locations, different countries. The
doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied on the basis of
the salaries paid to persons in different countries. They are not
similarly situated. They are not similarly placed. The cost of living in
different countries is different. The pay must necessarily, therefore, be
fixed keeping in mind various factors. These factors vary from
country to country. The doctrine has no applicability in such cases
and cannot be applied between people working in different countries.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2457 OF 2006
Ravindra Nath, Indian inhabitant,
Versus
State Bank of India,
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, &
A.K. MENON, JJ.
WEDNESDAY, 09TH JULY, 2014
Citation; 2015(1) MHLJ 84
Read original judgment here;click here
1. The petitioner has challenged an order/communication
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the State Bank of India,
Johannesburg Branch, dated 16th January, 2001, re-fixing his salary
with effect from 1st January, 2001. By an amendment, the petitioner
has challenged an order passed by respondent No.3 - Chief General
Manager, Foreign Offices, State Bank of India, dated 12th April, 2004.
By a further amendment, the petitioner challenged a decision dated
15th January, 2001, taken by respondent No.5 - Union of India and a
decision dated 8th February, 2001, of respondent No.1.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Chairman and Chief General
Manager, Foreign Offices of the State Bank of India. Respondent
No.4 is the Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No.5 is the Union of
India.
3. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order and judgment dated
25th April, 2007, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the
petitioner had not disclosed any justifiable reason for the delay in
approaching the Court. This order, however, was set aside by an order
and judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17th December, 2008. The
Supreme Court accepted the petitioner's explanation for the delay and
held that the petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground
of delay without deciding the same on merits. The Supreme Court
requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits.
4. The petitioner joined respondent No.1 as an officer on 14th
December, 1981. Respondent No.1, by a communication dated 24th
June, 2000, posted the petitioner at its Johannesburg Branch as
Manager (Credit). The communication stipulated the terms and
conditions of the posting. The relevant clauses are as follows :
"1. Salary
1.1 A fixed salary US$ 1965 (net) per month (subject
to change from time to time) will be paid to you abroad
from th date of your reporting at the foreign office.
Wherever taxes are payable by you on account of salary
and perquisites such taxes will be reimbursed by the Bank.
1.2 Your Rupee salary in India prior to proceeding
abroad will thus remain national; annual increments in this
salary will continue to accrue in the normal course and
will be advised to you as and when sanctioned. This will
have no effect on the foreign salary payable to you till you
remain posted abroad. Upon your repatriation to India,
you will draw the Indian salary fixed on the basis of the
national increments so granted.
... ... ... ...
7.3 Your salary as well as other terms and conditions
spelt out in this letter are subject to review and revision by
the Bank, from time to time."
Clause 4.3 mentions that the normal tenure of the posting
abroad would about three years except in emergency circumstances
and/or on administrative grounds in which case, the petitioner could
be repatriated even before the completion of the normal tenure.
5. The petitioner averred in paragraph 7 of the petition that the
Indian based officer posted at Johannesburg and Durban could not
have opted to come back after the impugned order which adversely
affected the service conditions at Johannesburg as by then they had
already altered their position in several respects to their detriment.
For instance, they had moved to Johannesburg by selling most of their
belongings such as furniture and vehicles at very low prices and it
would be difficult for them to replace the same upon their return.
They had also admitted their children to schools in Johannesburg and
had they returned to India mid-way, they would have lost the fees and
the same would also have resulted in the disruption of their children's
education. The petitioner, in any event, was not given an option to
return.
6. As we mentioned earlier, the petitioner joined the Johannesburg
Branch on 21st September, 2000. Upto December, 2000, the
petitioner was paid his salary as per the order dated 24th June, 2000
viz. US$ 1965/- per month.
By the impugned order dated 24th June, 2000, the petitioner's
salary was reduced from US$ 1965/- to US$ 1300/-. The relevant part
of the communication reads as under :
"Dear Sir,
REVISION OF SALARY W.E.F. 1.1.2001.
In the absence of availability of Cost of Living Index
data at the material time salary for Johannesburg was fixed
by the Working Group w.e.f. 1.1.1995 on the basis of
Consumer Price Index of 1992 (as per IMF Publication of
September 1995) as available.
2. With the relevant data now available, the Working
Group in its meeting held on January 15,2001 has refixed the
salary on the basis of the formula approved by the Standing
Committee. The detailed salary levels for various grades with
effect from 1.1.2001 will be as under :
Scale Net Monthly Salary in
U.S.$ (at present)
Net monthly salary in US$
payable w.e.f. 1.1.2001.
I ... ... ... ...
V 1965 1300
7. The petitioner thereafter made several representations against
his salary being re-fixed. Correspondence ensued by and between the
parties. The petitioner's case was also supported by various
representations made by senior officers of the State Bank of India
itself. In fact, the Chief General Manager, Foreign Offices, by a
communication dated 22nd January, 2001, stated that there appeared
to be a fundamental error on the part of the Standing Committee and
requested particulars of the formula adopted for inflicting such a
drastic financial blow upon the India-based officers who were posted
at foreign branches of SBI. The representations in support of the
petitioner's case were as follows. Johannesburg could not be
compared with other centres as the cost of living there was much
higher on account of various factors. The drastic reduction of 40%
would cause extreme hardship. As a result of the reduction, the
Manager's salary would be less than that drawn by the clerical staff of
the other branches and by a clerk at the Indian Consulate in
Johannesburg. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank would,
therefore, be drawing a salary less than the lowest ranking officer at
the Consulate. There was a anomaly in the Index based on which the
salary was reduced. Taking into consideration the normal expenses
such as for education, transport, electricity, water and medication, the
surplus available for food,clothing and other household necessities
would be only about US$ 125 to US$ 325 per month. This would be
wholly inadequate to meet basic requirements of an average family.
The CEO of the Johannesburg branch of SBI made several
representations to the Head Office. The representations also referred
to the security concerns in Johannesburg. Details were given of the
price of commodities.
8. The representations were replied to for the first time only by a
letter dated 12th February, 2012 i.e. after over a year later. The first
respondent stated that it was placing the matter before the Standing
Committee with a favourable recommendation for granting some
relief considering the hardships faced by the officers in South Africa.
9. Several letters and reminders were addressed by or on behalf of
the petitioners and other India-based officers requesting for some
interim reliefs till the Working Group / Standing Committee took a
final decision. The communications in this regard which commenced
on 9th September, 2002, went on till 27th February, 2004. Ultimately,
the petitioner and other similarly situated officers, by their letter dated
2nd August, 2004, informed the State Bank of India that they had been
advised by a letter dated 12th April, 2004, that their request for
restoration of their salary as per the contract had been declined by the
Working Group as well as the Standing Committee who stated that the
salaries had been correctly re-fixed.
10. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e. State Bank of India and its
officers themselves considered the reduction in salary to be unfair and
supported the petitioner's case for the restoration of their salary as per
the terms and conditions stipulated in his letter dated 24th June, 2000
posting the petitioner at the Johannesburg office. They, however,
contended that the Standing Committee did not permit the payment of
salaries as per the said communication / letter of appointment at the
Johannesburg office.
11. Mr. Moray rightly submitted that the petitioner has no privity of
contract with the Standing Committee. He submitted that the
petitioner is not concerned with what the Standing Committee does.
The decision of the Standing Committee, therefore, cannot adversely
affect the rights of the petitioner. We agree. Our attention has not
been invited to any provisions of law by which the petitioner is bound
by any recommendations of the Standing Committee.
12. The re-fixing of the petitioner's salary by reducing it from US$
1965/- to US$ 1300/- within three months of the petitioner having
been posted at Johannesburg is unfair and arbitrary. The petitioner
was entitled to accept the posting on the basis of the representations
contained in the letter dated 24th June, 2000. It is important to note a
few aspects regarding the letter. The respondents placed considerable
reliance upon clause 7.3 thereof set out above. They contended that
under clause 7.3 they were entitled to re-fix the salary in any manner
that they may desire. We do not agree. We will also presume for the
purpose of this petition that Mr. Moray's submission on behalf of the
petitioner that clause 7.3 contemplates only an upward revision in
price is not well founded. Even so, the impugned action re-fixing the
salary cannot be justified.
13. The letter dated 24th June, 2000, does not even remotely
suggest that the salary of US$ 1965/- fixed therein was merely
tentative. It did not state that the salary was tentative as the petitioner
did not have the available information necessary for fixing the salary.
The petitioner was, therefore, justified in presuming that the salary
had been fixed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors,
rules and regulations. Clause 7.3 merely confers a power upon
respondent No.1 to review and revise the salary based on a change in
circumstance after the letter dated 24th June, 2000. In other words,
clause 7.3 did not permit an alteration in the terms and conditions
stipulated therein per se. It merely permitted a prospective change in
the terms and conditions based on certain valid change in
circumstances. Had it been otherwise, the letter posting the petitioner
would itself had stated that the salary of US$ 1965/- was merely
tentative and was subject to being re-fixed upon the information
relevant at that point of time being available in future. Clause 7.3 did
not permit a mere change of opinion or an alteration in the terms and
conditions without there being a change in circumstances.
14. Mr. Moray further rightly pointed out that even on facts, the
case is not justified. The impugned letter suggests that the data
pertaining to the cost of living index was not available when the
petitioner was posted at the Johannesburg office by the letter dated
24th June, 2000. This appears to be incorrect. There is nothing to
indicate that the material was not available. In fact, the petitioner has
produced, by way of amendment, a document titled "Fixation of
Salary, Johannesburg, South Africa" which indicates that the statistics
regarding the cost of living index was reported by the monthly bulletin
of statistics published by the United Nations in March, 2000. The
letter posting the petitioner is dated 24th June, 2000. The material,
therefore, was available. The respondents failed to access it. Had the
respondents informed the petitioners that the material viz. the cost of
living index data was not available and that the salary of US$ 1965/-
would stand revised upon the receipt of the same as on the date of
posting, the petitioner could have taken an informed decision as to
whether or not to accept the posting. By not having informed the
petitioner this vital fact, the respondents made the petitioner alter his
position to his detriment. They are, therefore, estopped from doing so.
The petitioner's contention that he was seriously prejudiced by the
same is well founded. People adjust their expenses and take their
decision based on the representations made to them. For instance,
based on the salaries agreed upon, an officer would choose a school,
mode of transport, type of transport as well as various articles for the
day-to-day use. There are some financial commitments which cannot
be withdrawn. For instance,once admission is taken for children in a
school it may not be possible to withdraw them from the school except
at a huge financial loss.
15. Mr. Moray's reliance upon the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work is, however, misplaced. He sought a parity in the pay scale
between officers placed at different locations, different countries. The
doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied on the basis of
the salaries paid to persons in different countries. They are not
similarly situated. They are not similarly placed. The cost of living in
different countries is different. The pay must necessarily, therefore, be
fixed keeping in mind various factors. These factors vary from
country to country. The doctrine has no applicability in such cases
and cannot be applied between people working in different countries.
16. Mr. Bhave, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Bank of India relied upon a communication dated 27th July, 1982,
from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to various banks. The
communication stated that the Government had set up a committee to
evolve uniform guidelines on salaries, perquisites and other service
conditions applicable to officers of Indian banks posted abroad. The
communication further stated that the report of the committee had
been accepted by the Government and that any change in future in the
salaries, perquisites and other service conditions of the officers posted
abroad may be made only in consultation with and with the prior
approval of the Standing Committee constituted by the Government.
The composition of the Standing Committee was also mentioned. It
included the Chairmen of State Bank of India, Bank of India, Bank of
Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank or their representatives and the Joint
Secretary, Banking Division.
17. There are two answers to this contention. Firstly, this was an
internal matter for the bank. There is nothing on record to indicate
that the officers were put to notice that the salaries fixed by the letters
of posting were only tentative and would be subject to the fixation
thereof by the Standing Committee. Secondly, it appears that the
decision taken in the present case was not even by the Standing
Committee as constituted under the said communication dated 27th
July, 1982, as the Joint Secretary, Banking Division, was not a party to
the decision. Moreover, the uniform guidelines in salaries was to be
evolved by the committee. No such guidelines were produced by the
respondents.
Mr. Bhave submitted that this was a default on the part of the
Union of India who had not filed an affidavit. The petitioner,
however, cannot be prejudiced by the same. Moreover, respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3 could have taken steps to call for the same from the
Union of India. It did not do so. The petitioner cannot be prejudiced
by the same either.
18. Mr. Bhate, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union
of India submitted that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as it
was a matter of contract. The impugned action, however, has been
challenged on the ground that it is unfair and arbitrary. There are no
disputed questions of fact. The salary had been fixed. The only
question is whether the impugned action of re-fixing it was in
accordance with law or not and whether it was unfair and arbitrary.
We have come to the conclusion that it was wholly arbitrary.
19. Mr. Bhate then submitted that it is the State Bank of India that is
responsible for any financial liability. We agree. As far as the
petitioner is concerned, he must look to the State Bank of India and
not to the Union of India.
20. The contention that the petition ought to be dismissed on the
ground of delay must be rejected in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court which we have already referred to.
21. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the other
submissions raised by Mr. Moray.
22. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b) and (aa). No order as to costs The petitioner's dues
shall be computed and paid by 30th September, 2014.
A.K. MENON, J. S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
Print Page
work is, however, misplaced. He sought a parity in the pay scale
between officers placed at different locations, different countries. The
doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied on the basis of
the salaries paid to persons in different countries. They are not
similarly situated. They are not similarly placed. The cost of living in
different countries is different. The pay must necessarily, therefore, be
fixed keeping in mind various factors. These factors vary from
country to country. The doctrine has no applicability in such cases
and cannot be applied between people working in different countries.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2457 OF 2006
Ravindra Nath, Indian inhabitant,
Versus
State Bank of India,
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, &
A.K. MENON, JJ.
WEDNESDAY, 09TH JULY, 2014
Citation; 2015(1) MHLJ 84
Read original judgment here;click here
1. The petitioner has challenged an order/communication
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the State Bank of India,
Johannesburg Branch, dated 16th January, 2001, re-fixing his salary
with effect from 1st January, 2001. By an amendment, the petitioner
has challenged an order passed by respondent No.3 - Chief General
Manager, Foreign Offices, State Bank of India, dated 12th April, 2004.
By a further amendment, the petitioner challenged a decision dated
15th January, 2001, taken by respondent No.5 - Union of India and a
decision dated 8th February, 2001, of respondent No.1.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Chairman and Chief General
Manager, Foreign Offices of the State Bank of India. Respondent
No.4 is the Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No.5 is the Union of
India.
3. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order and judgment dated
25th April, 2007, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the
petitioner had not disclosed any justifiable reason for the delay in
approaching the Court. This order, however, was set aside by an order
and judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17th December, 2008. The
Supreme Court accepted the petitioner's explanation for the delay and
held that the petition ought not to have been dismissed on the ground
of delay without deciding the same on merits. The Supreme Court
requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits.
4. The petitioner joined respondent No.1 as an officer on 14th
December, 1981. Respondent No.1, by a communication dated 24th
June, 2000, posted the petitioner at its Johannesburg Branch as
Manager (Credit). The communication stipulated the terms and
conditions of the posting. The relevant clauses are as follows :
"1. Salary
1.1 A fixed salary US$ 1965 (net) per month (subject
to change from time to time) will be paid to you abroad
from th date of your reporting at the foreign office.
Wherever taxes are payable by you on account of salary
and perquisites such taxes will be reimbursed by the Bank.
1.2 Your Rupee salary in India prior to proceeding
abroad will thus remain national; annual increments in this
salary will continue to accrue in the normal course and
will be advised to you as and when sanctioned. This will
have no effect on the foreign salary payable to you till you
remain posted abroad. Upon your repatriation to India,
you will draw the Indian salary fixed on the basis of the
national increments so granted.
... ... ... ...
7.3 Your salary as well as other terms and conditions
spelt out in this letter are subject to review and revision by
the Bank, from time to time."
Clause 4.3 mentions that the normal tenure of the posting
abroad would about three years except in emergency circumstances
and/or on administrative grounds in which case, the petitioner could
be repatriated even before the completion of the normal tenure.
5. The petitioner averred in paragraph 7 of the petition that the
Indian based officer posted at Johannesburg and Durban could not
have opted to come back after the impugned order which adversely
affected the service conditions at Johannesburg as by then they had
already altered their position in several respects to their detriment.
For instance, they had moved to Johannesburg by selling most of their
belongings such as furniture and vehicles at very low prices and it
would be difficult for them to replace the same upon their return.
They had also admitted their children to schools in Johannesburg and
had they returned to India mid-way, they would have lost the fees and
the same would also have resulted in the disruption of their children's
education. The petitioner, in any event, was not given an option to
return.
6. As we mentioned earlier, the petitioner joined the Johannesburg
Branch on 21st September, 2000. Upto December, 2000, the
petitioner was paid his salary as per the order dated 24th June, 2000
viz. US$ 1965/- per month.
By the impugned order dated 24th June, 2000, the petitioner's
salary was reduced from US$ 1965/- to US$ 1300/-. The relevant part
of the communication reads as under :
"Dear Sir,
REVISION OF SALARY W.E.F. 1.1.2001.
In the absence of availability of Cost of Living Index
data at the material time salary for Johannesburg was fixed
by the Working Group w.e.f. 1.1.1995 on the basis of
Consumer Price Index of 1992 (as per IMF Publication of
September 1995) as available.
2. With the relevant data now available, the Working
Group in its meeting held on January 15,2001 has refixed the
salary on the basis of the formula approved by the Standing
Committee. The detailed salary levels for various grades with
effect from 1.1.2001 will be as under :
Scale Net Monthly Salary in
U.S.$ (at present)
Net monthly salary in US$
payable w.e.f. 1.1.2001.
I ... ... ... ...
V 1965 1300
7. The petitioner thereafter made several representations against
his salary being re-fixed. Correspondence ensued by and between the
parties. The petitioner's case was also supported by various
representations made by senior officers of the State Bank of India
itself. In fact, the Chief General Manager, Foreign Offices, by a
communication dated 22nd January, 2001, stated that there appeared
to be a fundamental error on the part of the Standing Committee and
requested particulars of the formula adopted for inflicting such a
drastic financial blow upon the India-based officers who were posted
at foreign branches of SBI. The representations in support of the
petitioner's case were as follows. Johannesburg could not be
compared with other centres as the cost of living there was much
higher on account of various factors. The drastic reduction of 40%
would cause extreme hardship. As a result of the reduction, the
Manager's salary would be less than that drawn by the clerical staff of
the other branches and by a clerk at the Indian Consulate in
Johannesburg. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank would,
therefore, be drawing a salary less than the lowest ranking officer at
the Consulate. There was a anomaly in the Index based on which the
salary was reduced. Taking into consideration the normal expenses
such as for education, transport, electricity, water and medication, the
surplus available for food,clothing and other household necessities
would be only about US$ 125 to US$ 325 per month. This would be
wholly inadequate to meet basic requirements of an average family.
The CEO of the Johannesburg branch of SBI made several
representations to the Head Office. The representations also referred
to the security concerns in Johannesburg. Details were given of the
price of commodities.
8. The representations were replied to for the first time only by a
letter dated 12th February, 2012 i.e. after over a year later. The first
respondent stated that it was placing the matter before the Standing
Committee with a favourable recommendation for granting some
relief considering the hardships faced by the officers in South Africa.
9. Several letters and reminders were addressed by or on behalf of
the petitioners and other India-based officers requesting for some
interim reliefs till the Working Group / Standing Committee took a
final decision. The communications in this regard which commenced
on 9th September, 2002, went on till 27th February, 2004. Ultimately,
the petitioner and other similarly situated officers, by their letter dated
2nd August, 2004, informed the State Bank of India that they had been
advised by a letter dated 12th April, 2004, that their request for
restoration of their salary as per the contract had been declined by the
Working Group as well as the Standing Committee who stated that the
salaries had been correctly re-fixed.
10. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e. State Bank of India and its
officers themselves considered the reduction in salary to be unfair and
supported the petitioner's case for the restoration of their salary as per
the terms and conditions stipulated in his letter dated 24th June, 2000
posting the petitioner at the Johannesburg office. They, however,
contended that the Standing Committee did not permit the payment of
salaries as per the said communication / letter of appointment at the
Johannesburg office.
11. Mr. Moray rightly submitted that the petitioner has no privity of
contract with the Standing Committee. He submitted that the
petitioner is not concerned with what the Standing Committee does.
The decision of the Standing Committee, therefore, cannot adversely
affect the rights of the petitioner. We agree. Our attention has not
been invited to any provisions of law by which the petitioner is bound
by any recommendations of the Standing Committee.
12. The re-fixing of the petitioner's salary by reducing it from US$
1965/- to US$ 1300/- within three months of the petitioner having
been posted at Johannesburg is unfair and arbitrary. The petitioner
was entitled to accept the posting on the basis of the representations
contained in the letter dated 24th June, 2000. It is important to note a
few aspects regarding the letter. The respondents placed considerable
reliance upon clause 7.3 thereof set out above. They contended that
under clause 7.3 they were entitled to re-fix the salary in any manner
that they may desire. We do not agree. We will also presume for the
purpose of this petition that Mr. Moray's submission on behalf of the
petitioner that clause 7.3 contemplates only an upward revision in
price is not well founded. Even so, the impugned action re-fixing the
salary cannot be justified.
13. The letter dated 24th June, 2000, does not even remotely
suggest that the salary of US$ 1965/- fixed therein was merely
tentative. It did not state that the salary was tentative as the petitioner
did not have the available information necessary for fixing the salary.
The petitioner was, therefore, justified in presuming that the salary
had been fixed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors,
rules and regulations. Clause 7.3 merely confers a power upon
respondent No.1 to review and revise the salary based on a change in
circumstance after the letter dated 24th June, 2000. In other words,
clause 7.3 did not permit an alteration in the terms and conditions
stipulated therein per se. It merely permitted a prospective change in
the terms and conditions based on certain valid change in
circumstances. Had it been otherwise, the letter posting the petitioner
would itself had stated that the salary of US$ 1965/- was merely
tentative and was subject to being re-fixed upon the information
relevant at that point of time being available in future. Clause 7.3 did
not permit a mere change of opinion or an alteration in the terms and
conditions without there being a change in circumstances.
14. Mr. Moray further rightly pointed out that even on facts, the
case is not justified. The impugned letter suggests that the data
pertaining to the cost of living index was not available when the
petitioner was posted at the Johannesburg office by the letter dated
24th June, 2000. This appears to be incorrect. There is nothing to
indicate that the material was not available. In fact, the petitioner has
produced, by way of amendment, a document titled "Fixation of
Salary, Johannesburg, South Africa" which indicates that the statistics
regarding the cost of living index was reported by the monthly bulletin
of statistics published by the United Nations in March, 2000. The
letter posting the petitioner is dated 24th June, 2000. The material,
therefore, was available. The respondents failed to access it. Had the
respondents informed the petitioners that the material viz. the cost of
living index data was not available and that the salary of US$ 1965/-
would stand revised upon the receipt of the same as on the date of
posting, the petitioner could have taken an informed decision as to
whether or not to accept the posting. By not having informed the
petitioner this vital fact, the respondents made the petitioner alter his
position to his detriment. They are, therefore, estopped from doing so.
The petitioner's contention that he was seriously prejudiced by the
same is well founded. People adjust their expenses and take their
decision based on the representations made to them. For instance,
based on the salaries agreed upon, an officer would choose a school,
mode of transport, type of transport as well as various articles for the
day-to-day use. There are some financial commitments which cannot
be withdrawn. For instance,once admission is taken for children in a
school it may not be possible to withdraw them from the school except
at a huge financial loss.
15. Mr. Moray's reliance upon the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work is, however, misplaced. He sought a parity in the pay scale
between officers placed at different locations, different countries. The
doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied on the basis of
the salaries paid to persons in different countries. They are not
similarly situated. They are not similarly placed. The cost of living in
different countries is different. The pay must necessarily, therefore, be
fixed keeping in mind various factors. These factors vary from
country to country. The doctrine has no applicability in such cases
and cannot be applied between people working in different countries.
16. Mr. Bhave, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Bank of India relied upon a communication dated 27th July, 1982,
from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to various banks. The
communication stated that the Government had set up a committee to
evolve uniform guidelines on salaries, perquisites and other service
conditions applicable to officers of Indian banks posted abroad. The
communication further stated that the report of the committee had
been accepted by the Government and that any change in future in the
salaries, perquisites and other service conditions of the officers posted
abroad may be made only in consultation with and with the prior
approval of the Standing Committee constituted by the Government.
The composition of the Standing Committee was also mentioned. It
included the Chairmen of State Bank of India, Bank of India, Bank of
Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank or their representatives and the Joint
Secretary, Banking Division.
17. There are two answers to this contention. Firstly, this was an
internal matter for the bank. There is nothing on record to indicate
that the officers were put to notice that the salaries fixed by the letters
of posting were only tentative and would be subject to the fixation
thereof by the Standing Committee. Secondly, it appears that the
decision taken in the present case was not even by the Standing
Committee as constituted under the said communication dated 27th
July, 1982, as the Joint Secretary, Banking Division, was not a party to
the decision. Moreover, the uniform guidelines in salaries was to be
evolved by the committee. No such guidelines were produced by the
respondents.
Mr. Bhave submitted that this was a default on the part of the
Union of India who had not filed an affidavit. The petitioner,
however, cannot be prejudiced by the same. Moreover, respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3 could have taken steps to call for the same from the
Union of India. It did not do so. The petitioner cannot be prejudiced
by the same either.
18. Mr. Bhate, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union
of India submitted that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as it
was a matter of contract. The impugned action, however, has been
challenged on the ground that it is unfair and arbitrary. There are no
disputed questions of fact. The salary had been fixed. The only
question is whether the impugned action of re-fixing it was in
accordance with law or not and whether it was unfair and arbitrary.
We have come to the conclusion that it was wholly arbitrary.
19. Mr. Bhate then submitted that it is the State Bank of India that is
responsible for any financial liability. We agree. As far as the
petitioner is concerned, he must look to the State Bank of India and
not to the Union of India.
20. The contention that the petition ought to be dismissed on the
ground of delay must be rejected in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court which we have already referred to.
21. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the other
submissions raised by Mr. Moray.
22. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b) and (aa). No order as to costs The petitioner's dues
shall be computed and paid by 30th September, 2014.
A.K. MENON, J. S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment