- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred by the Officers' Association of Giridih, Kshetriya Gramin Bank along with employees' association of the said Bank, Bank Staff's Association of the said Bank and also through the General Secretary of the Giridih Regional Rural Bank Officers Association. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition on their behalf are essentially challenge to the recovery of the amount paid as computerization increment to the employees of the said Bank. The petitioners have, therefore, sought quashing of the letter dated 21st April, 2003 (Annexure -9); letter dated 28th April, 2003 (Annexure 10) and letter dated 15th June, 2002 (Annexure -7) as well as letter dated 1st July, 2002 (Annexure 8), as a result of which the payment of the said amounts were either stopped or were directed to be recovered. These petitioners had sought such a relief citing direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Giridih, Kshetriya Gramin Bank has been set up by the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the R.R.B. Act, 1976 and in exercise of power under Section 17 of the R.R.B. Act, the Central Government is empowered to determine the salary structure of the employees and officers of the Regional Rural Bank.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to a decision of the sponsoring bank, it was decided to provide advance increment for computerization to the employees of the Regional Rural Bank since 1st April, 2000 and arrears since 1st November, 1993. These benefits were directed to be stopped in view of the letter issued by the respondent no.3 based upon which Annexure 8 letter dated 1st July, 2002 was issued. Subsequently, vide letters contained at Annexures 9 & 10 dated 21st April, 2003 and 28th April, 2003 issued by the respondent no. 3 and 1 respectively, the directions were issued for recovery of the payments made as computerization increment from the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, came before this Court being aggrieved by the said directions and relying upon the orders passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7376 of 2001 and analogous cases in the case of Magadh Gramin Bank Officers' Association and anr. and Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank Officers' Association vide order dated 17th December, 2002. According to them, against the said order, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 84 of 2003 also stood dismissed vide Annexure -12 by the Patna High Court restraining recovery of the said amount. On the other hand, the Respondents Bank had appeared through their counsel and filed counter affidavit, in which it was indicated that the aforesaid decision to stop the payment and recovery of excess payment paid under the Head of computerization increment to the employees of the R.R.B was taken pursuant to the decision of the sponsoring bank. It was also indicated that R.R.B being guided by the guidelines issued by the NABARD and under the control of the Government of India is bound to obey and follow the guidelines in respect of pay structure and release of allowance increments etc. to its employees applicable uniformly through out the country. It is the case of the respondents that the decision rendered by Patna High Court in identical circumstances restraining the Respondents Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank from recovery of the amounts paid under computerization increment to its employees were subjected to challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the aggrieved Bank in Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003. It was stated vide Annexure A that by interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India payment of such increment was stayed, but it was also clarified that pending this appeal whatever amount has been paid shall not be recovered. These amounts were not recovered during the pendency of the writ application. However, the said Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003 has been decided finally vide judgment dated 17th February, 2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that the very same issue was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in relation to the judgment of Patna High Court, which the petitioners have relied herein. Learned counsel for the Respondents -Banks submits that after taking into account the decision taken by the NABARD and approved by the Government of India as contained in documents produced before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 6th January, 2003 of the Government of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to a definite conclusion that the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of RBBs was not favoured by the Banks and the NABARD which consensus was agreed to by the Government of India effectively declining the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of the RRB. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found that the decisions were not subjected to any challenge before the High Court and the directions issued by learned Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench in appeal of Patna High Court to the extent requiring the Regional Rural Bank to grant the said benefit was found to be unsustainable and accordingly the appeals were allowed in part and the orders passed by the High Court to that extent were set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also refused the prayer of the respondents writ petitioners to challenge the said decision, however, making it clear that the order shall not prevent the respondents association or any member thereof from challenging it in appropriate proceedings the validity of the decision taken by the Government of India subject to all just exceptions including delay and latches. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the writ petition preferred by the present petitioners is also bound to suffer the same fate, as the petitioners have challenged the recovery of the amount of computerization increment in the present writ application and no challenge to the decision of the NABARD and the Government of India taken in July, 2002 and January, 2003 has been made in the present writ application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, however, sought indulgence to challenge the said decision now by making a prayer in filing an amendment to the main writ application.;