RESERVE BANK OF INDIAversusRESERVE BANK OF INDIA STAFF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

                        RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
A
                                        v.
            RESERVE BANK OF INDIA STAFF OFFICERS
                   ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

                               AUGUST 9. 1991
B
                 IM.l-1. KANIA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]

          Cons1;1urion of India, 1950-An;c/es 14, 16-Non-local & local
    bank officers of Reserve Bank at Gauhati-Certain incentives to non-
    /oral oj} 1cers- \.t\-'het/ier .discriminatory.
c        By a letter dated December 9, 1983 certain incentives and allo-
    wances were provided by the appellant to its officers posted at Gauhati
    who were not from the North-Eastern region. Those allowances were
    generally known as special duty allowances and the main special duty
    allowance comprised 25% of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs.400
    per month.
D
          By a Memorandum issued by the appellant on April II, 1985, an
    ad hoc increase in salary was effected for non-local officers and an
    option was given to them either to choose the ad hoc increase or the
    special duty allowances for the period during which they were posted at
    Gauhati.
           The respondent demanded the extension of the said benefits to
    the local officers by their letter dated May 10, 1985. When the
                                                                                  .
    appellant-bank declined to allow the benefits to the local officers, the
    respondent-association challenged the Memorandum dated April 11,
    1985 in a writ petition in the High Court, contending that all the officers
F
    of the appellant-bank posted at Gauhati, whether they were from the               '
    '.\orth-Eastern region or outside had to live in the same conditions and
    suffer from the same hardships, and hence, if any allowance was given
    to the officers transferred from outside to the Gauhati Office, the very
    same allowance should also be given to the local officers posted al
    ( ;auhati.
G        The appellant bank averred in its counter that the' scheme of ad
    hoc incentives was introduced to tide over the problem of adequately
    staffing the Gauhati office; that the non-local officers experienced
    difficulties in getting accommodation, getting familiar with the lang-
    uage and so on, and some incentives had to be given to them to mitigate
    the hardships experienced by them on transfer to Gauhati; that the said
H   incentives were temporary and because of the peculiar circumstances

                                       460
                    RESERVE BANK v. OFFICERS ASSOCN. [KANIA. J.[               461

         prevailing at the moment in· the North-Eastern region, which was            A
         regarded as a difficult region.

r .-4          The High Court allowed the petition, holding that all officers at
         Gauhati suffered from substantially the same hardship and that the
         local officers of the appellant-bank at Gauhati were discriminated
         against and directed that they must be given the same benefits as the       B
         non-local officers transferred to Gauhati.
                                                            -
               Allowing the appeal by special leave filed by the·bank, this Court,

               HELD: 1.01. The hardship and inconveniences suffered by an
         officer of the appellant-hank who was transferred to Gauhati fro.m
         regions other than the North-Eastern region would certainly be more         c
         acute than those suffered by local officers posted at Gauhati. [463G-H I

               1.02. Some of the officers coming from the North-Eastern region
         may also face considerable hardship when posted at Gauhati but the
         fact that there might be a few such officers would not render the pay-      D
         ment of special allowance, exclusively to officers transferred from dis-
• i      tant regions discriminatory and bad in law. [464B-C]

               J.03. The Reserve Bank of India, is a banking institution and if in
         the interest of efficiency and proper working, it bona fide took the
         decision to grant some extra benefits to the non-local officers transfer-   E
         red to Gauhati with a view to maintain efficient working of its unit at
         Gauhati, they cannot be treated as being guilty of any unlawful
         discrimination. [464E-F]

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3107
         of 1991.                                                                    F

               From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8. 1990 of the Gauhati
        , High Court in Civil Rule No. 407 of 1985.

               H.N. Salve. K.S. Parihar and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
                                                                                     G
"i            P.K. Goswami, Kailash Vasdev and M.J.                 Paul for the
         Respondents.

               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

               KANIA, J. Special leave granted. Counsel heard.                       H
    462                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1991] 3 S.C.R.

          This is an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, by special
A
    leave. The contesting respondent, being respondent No. 1, is an
    association of its officers at its Gauhati unit. The respondent associa-
    tion (referred to hereinafter as "the respondent") represents the
    interests of 45 officers belonging to Grades A to C employed in the
    appellant bank at its unit at Gauhati. It appears from the affidavit filed
B   on behalf of the appellant that there was difficulty in persuading offi-
    cers of the appellant posted outside the North-Eastern region to accept
    transfers to the unit of the appellant in the North-Eastern part of the
    country which unit was located at Gauhati in Assam. It also emerges
    from the record that the Gauhati station was regarded as a hardship
    station by the officers who were transferred to the Gauhati unit from        +•
    other regions of the country. The Government of India found a similar
c   difficulty in persuading its officers to accept postings in the North-
    Eastern region and they were given substantial incentives to accept
    transfers to the North-Eastern region. We are not here concerned
    directly with the actual benefits granted by the Government of India
    but what is material is that such benefits had to be given by the
D   Government of India. By a letter dated December 9, 1983, certain

                                                                                 .. .
    incentives and allowances were provided by the appellant to its officers
    posted at Gauhati who were not from the North-Eastern regions.
    Those allowances were genendly known as special duty allowances.
    We are not much concerned with the details as to how the special duty
    allowances were calculated but the main special duty allowance basi-
E   cally comprised 25% of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs.400 per
    month. These allowances were also known as special compensatory
    allowances or remote locality allowances. By a Memorandum issued
    by the appellant on April 11, 1985, an ad hoc increase in salary was
    effected for non-local officers and an option was given to them either
    to choose the ad hoc increase or the special duty allowances for the
F   period during which they were posted at Gauhati. The respondent
    demanded the extension of the said benefit to the local officers by its
    letter dated May 10, 1985. We may mention here that the local officers
    who were posted at the Gauhati did get an extra allowance in addition
    to their salaries but it was considerably smaller than the main com-
    pensatory allowance paid to the officers from outside the North-                ...
G   Eastern region who were transferred to Gauhati. Certain other
    benefits were also allowed to non-local officers transferred to Gauhati
    but there is no need to refer to them in detail. The appellant declined
    to allow the same allowances to local officers posted at Gauhati as
    were given to the officers from other regions transferred to Gauhati as
    stated earlier. It is this decision which gave rise to the writ petition
H   from the decision in which this appeal arises.
                   RESERVE BANK. v. OFFICERS ASSOCN. [KANIA, J.)               463

               It was the contention of the respondent before the Gauhati High        A
         Court that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati,
         whether they were from the North-Eastern region or outside had to
         live in the same conditions and suffer from the same hardships, and
         hence, if any allowance was given to the officers transferred from
         outside to the Gauhati office, the very same allowance should also be
         given to the local officers posted at Gauhati. In the counter filed in the   B
         High Court by the appellant bank, the Deputy Chid Officer of the
         appellant bank averred that the hardships faced by the non-local offi-
         cers are greater than those faced by the local officers. The scheme of
         ad hoc incentives was introduced to tide 'over the problem of
         adequately staffing the Gauhati office. Non-local' officers experienced
         difficulties in getting accommodation, getting familiar with the
         language and so on, and some incentives had to be given to them to
                                                                                      c
         mitigate the hardships experienced by them on transfer to Gauhati. It
         was clarified that the said incentives were temporary and because of
         the peculier circumstances prevailing at the moment in the North-
         Eastern region which was regarded as a difficult region. It was
         accepted that considerable difficulties would have to be suffered by the     D
         officers posted there who hailed from places outside the North-
         Eastern region. The contention of the appellant bank failed to find
         favour with the High Court which took the view that all officers at
         Gauhati suffered from substantially the same hardship and it pointed
         out that, for example, even officers from outside from Tripura who
         were posted at Gauhati would suffer almost the same degree of hard-          E
         ship as officers transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the
         North-Eastern regions although Tripura was in the North-Eastern
..       region. The High Court took the view that the local officers of the
         appellant bank, Gauhati were discriminated against and directed that
     1
         they must be given the same benefits as the non-local officers transfer-
         red to Gauhati.                                                              F

               It is the correctness of the view taken by the High Court which is
         sought to be impugned before us in this appeal. We are of the opinion
         that the High Court was, mith respect, in error in taking the view that
         officers from the North-Eastern region who were posted at Gauhati.
         either on transfer or otherwise, sufferred the same hardships as offi-       G
         cers from other regions transferred to Gauhati. The hardship and
         inc~nveriience sufferred by an officer of the appellant bank who was
         transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North-Eastern
         region, would certainly be more acute than those suffered by local
         officers posted at Gauhati. His mother tongue might completely be
         different in sp.eech and, even as far as the script is concerned, from the   H
    464                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A   language used by the local people at Gauhati. He and his family
    members would, therefore, find it very difficult to communicate freely
    with the local people. His children might find it difficult to get admis-
    sion to a school and pursue their education at Gauhati. They would he
    unfamiliar with the surroundings and the customs of the people. The
    hardships faced by an officer say from the Western or Southern regions
B
    of India or North India posted at Gauhati would be qualitatively as
    well as' quantitatively greater than the hardships faced by the local
    officers posted at Gauhati. It may be that some of the officers coming
    from the North-Eastern region may also face considerable hardships
    when p()sted at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a few such
    officers WO\]ld not render the payment of special allowance, exclu-         +"'
c   sively to officers transferred from distant regions discriminatory and
    had in law. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in coming to
    the conclusion that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at
    Gauhati sufferred from the same degree of hardship. A person trans-
    ferred from outside the North-Eastern region to Gauhati would nor-
    mally have to face more severe difficulties than an officer from the
D
    North-Eastern region posted in Gauhati or, at the least, the appellant
    bank could reasonably take that view. Moreover, as pointed out by the
    appellant bank in the counter that they were finding it difficult to
    persuade their officers from outside to accept transfers to Gauhati and
                                                                                '.
    it is common knowledge that an office of a large bank cannot be run
    efficiently by officers a large number of whom have been posted there
E
    by transfers against their will and under the threat of disciplinary
    action. The work done by them could hardly be expected to be
    satisfactory. After all, the appellant, the Reserve Bank of India, is a
    banking institution and if in the interest of efficiency and proper work-
    ing it bona fide took the decision, in the circumstances set out earlier,
    to grant some extra benefits to the non-local officers transferred to
F
    Gauhati with a view to maintain efficient working of its unit at
    Gauhati, in our opinion, they cannot be treated as being guilty of any
    unlawful discrimination.

         Jn the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the
    High Court. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed.
G   There will be no order as to costs throughout.

    V.P.R.                                                  Appeal allowed.