(1.) The appellant is a Bank, aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which directed fixation of pay of the writ petitioners in a manner allegedly in conflict with the provision for such fixation; as is available in Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 is issued by the Department of Financial Services (Welfare), Government of India for fixation of pay of Ex-servicemen re-employed inter alia in Public Sector Banks.
(2.) Writ petitioners are persons who retired from the Indian Navy as Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR). The petitioners 1 and 4 retired in the year 2016, petitioners 2 and 3 in 2017 and the 5th petitioner in 2015. They were re-employed in the Punjab National Bank, the appellant, and were fixed at a scale far above that they were entitled to, is the contention of the Bank. The Bank while appointing them in the Clerical cadre fixed their pay far above the maximum scale applicable to that cadre. By an erroneous understanding of Ext. P1, the petitioners 1 to 4 were granted the 7th stagnation stage in the clerical cadre and the 5th petitioner the 2nd stagnation stage. The fixation resulted in an anomaly insofar as, the total pay drawn plus pension, exceeding the minimum of the scale of pay of the General Manager in the Bank, argues the Bank.
(3.) The contention before the learned Single Judge was that the Indian Banks Association had clarified that the fitment should not exceed the maximum basic pay of clerical cadre. The earlier fixation was revised and the pay of the petitioners were fixed at the maximum of the scale of pay in the Clerical cadre. The learned Single Judge extracted Clause 2.1 of Exhibit P1 guidelines and found that it speaks of pay protection of Ex-servicemen and they have to be granted pay at the rates they were last drawing, in service. The IBA guidelines was found to be incapable of overriding the Government of India directions. The writ petitions were, hence, allowed and the pay fixation as granted by the Bank at the time of joining was restored.