Holding

Fitment benefits under the Dena Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979, are available only to officers who were originally on the old pay scale and later revised, so the appellant, appointed directly in the new scale, is not entitled to any further fitment.

Summary

The appellant, Durga Narayan, was appointed as Economic Officer of Dena Bank on 26 May 1978 with a basic pay of Rs.700, the scale recommended by the Pillai Committee. After ten years he claimed that he was entitled to a further "fitment" benefit under the Dena Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979, arguing that the benefit had not been fully granted. The Bank contended that fitment applies only to officers who were originally on the old pay scale and later revised, not to new appointees like the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not eligible for any additional fitment because his appointment already incorporated the new scale, and the fitment provision does not extend to him. However, the Court directed the Bank to adjust his dearness allowance to Rs.450 as per the Pillai Committee recommendations and to issue a speaking order within two months. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an officer appointed after the implementation of the Pillai Committee recommendations, with basic pay fixed at Rs.700, is entitled to further fitment under the Dena Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979.
Whether the fitment provision applies only to officers who were in the old pay scale and later revised, excluding new appointees.
Whether benefits in kind recommended in Chapter 7 of the Pillai Committee report give rise to a fitment claim.
Whether the appellant is entitled to a higher dearness allowance as per the Pillai Committee recommendations.
Whether the doctrine of estoppel bars the Bank from denying the fitment claim.

Subjects

service lawappointmentfitmentpay scaledearness allowanceDena BankPillai Committeebank officersregulationsestoppel

Judgment

DURGA NARAYAN A
v
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, DENA BANK

JANUARY 20, 1995

[A.M. AHMADI, CJ, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.) B

~ Service Law-Appointment~conomic Officer in Dena Bank-Officer
having been put in pay scale of Rs. 700-1800 as laid down by Pillai Commit-
tee-claim of fitment under Dena Bank (Officer's) Service Regulation
1979-Not sustainable-DA payable as recommended by Pillai Commit- c
tee-Bank Directed to verify and pass speaking order.

Appellant was offered appointment on 26th May, 1978 in the Dena
Bank as Ec'onomic Officer in pay scale I as laid down by the Pillai

. ....
Committee, which was Rs. 700-1800, with other allowances, perquisites and
benefit as per the Pillai Committee recommendations. The appellant D
joined the ·Bank and after about 10 years of his se,rvice claimed fitment
benefit in the new pay scale as recommended by the Pillai Committee for
'Scale C' Officer who were categorised as 'Junior Management Grade
Scale' Officers by the Comittee. The High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. E
The appellant alleged that though basic pay meant ·ror Junior
Management Grade Scale I Officer as recommended by Pillai Committee
was made available to him, the fitment of which mention had been made
in Dena Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979, had not been don~ He
argued that if anything further was due to him, same might not be denied F
on the ground of estoppel.

The Bank contended that the appellant was not entitled to any
litment under the Regulation inasmuch as question of litment could arise
only for the existing Officers and not for new appointees 'like the appellant.
It was stated that whatever Wi'S made available by the Pillai Committee's
G
-;,..
report to incumbent like appellant had been given while offering appoint·
ment to him.

The question raised for consideration was whether by fixing his basic
pay at Rs. 700 a the time of his appointment itself, the benefit had been H
513
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A made avail?ble to the appellant or not.
Dismissing the' appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Though Pillai Committee's recommendations were for•
mally made effective from 1st July, 1979 the same had come to be imple·
B mented with effect from 1st May, 1978 and it was because of this, that though
the appellant's offer of appointment was dated2.6th May, 1978 his basic pay
was stated as Rs. 700, though in the advertisement, which was published on
25/26 August, 1977 pursuant to which appellant had applied, emoluments to
be given were said to range from Rs. 325 to Rs. 925. [517-C-D]

c 1.2. The appellant was not entitled to any amount as the question of
fitment could arise only qua those officers who were in the old scale of pay
and which came to be revised pursuant to Pillai Committee's Report, and
not qua those who had already been given new pay scale, as was the
appellant. [517-F]
D
2.1 Perusal of the Report shows that apart from the matter relating
to the pay scale, it dealt with "Amenities, Facilities and Benefits in Kind"
which formed subject matter of Chapter 7 of the Report. So, the claim of
fitment cannot be sustained on the basis of what was recommended on the
score of benefits in kind. [518-B]
E
2.2 DA, as per chart I given in the booklet title "Pay Scales; Allowan-
ces and perquisites of Officers in the Nationalised Banks" issued by All
India Conference of Bank Officer's Organisation (Maharashtra State
Unit), of those officers whose basic pay is Rs. 700 is required to be Rs. 450.
F If this was so as per the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, the DA
of the appellant would be required to be raised to Rs. 450. The Bank shall
verify this and do the needful within a period of two months by passing a
speaking order in this regard. [518-F-G]

Shri Devendra Management Trainee v. Punjab National Bank, JT
G (1993) 6 SC 537 distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 870 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.93 of the Madhya Pradesh
..
H High Court in M.P. No. 251of1988.
(

DURGA NARAYAN v. DENA BANK [HANSARIA, J.) 515

U.N. Bachawat and H.M. Singh for the Appellant. A
R.C. Pathak and Ms. Prana Tandon for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

HANSARIA, J. The Government of India, by a resolution dated July B
19, 1973 appointed a committee consisting of five members to standardise
pay scale, allowances and perquisites of the Officers in the 14 Nationalised
Banks. The Committee came to be popularly referred as the 'Pillai
Committee' named after its Chairman. It submitted its report in May 1974.
The Government appointed a Study Group of Bankers in September 1916 C
to make suggestions for the implementation of the report. The Committee
suggested certain modifications in the method of implementation and
submitted its further report in February 1977; and the Government
adopted the report as modified by the Group of Bankers.

.. 2. The question of implementation of the report as adopted by the D
Government was discussed by the Indian Bank's Association with various
representatives of all the Confederations of Banking Officers' Organisa-
tion; and the Secretary of this Association addressed a private and con-
fidential letter to Chief Executives of various Banks including Dena Bank
on March 15, 1978 that the Government has desired to bring Pillai E
Committee's recommendations in force latest with effect by May 1978. The
Chief Executives were, therefore, advised to take steps to introduce the
new scale of pay and allowances as per the Committee's report and to make
appropriate fitment in the emoluments of the existing officers with effect
from 1st May, 1978, or even earlier if so desired, after discussion with the
organisations representing the Officers. This letter further informed the F
Chief Executives about the desire of the Government that all new appoint-
ments on or after 1st May, 1978 should be on the terms and conditions
contained in the Pillai Commiittee report.

3. The aforesaid communication was followed by a secret letter from
the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Eeonomic G
Affairs (Banking Division) dated March 28, 1978, mentioning about the
concern of the Government about the delay in the implementation of the
recommendations of the Pillai Committee. In view of this, the Banks were
advised by the Joint Secretary that if there is going to be delay in the total
implementation of the recommendations, immediate steps should be taken H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A to bring the new .pay scales and allowances applicable ~o all new recruits
and new promotees from clerks to Officers cadre, pending fitment of the
existing officers in the new scales. This letter contains some other advice
also.

4. It is in the aforesaid background that the Dena Bank (hereinafter
B 'the Bank') offered to appoint the appellant, pursuant to his application,
in the Bank as Economic Officer in the pay scale I as laid down by the
Pillai Committee, which is Rs. 700-1800, with other allowances, perquisites
and benefits as per the Pillai Committee recommendations. This offer is ... A

,,,
dated 26th May, 1978 and states that the present emoluments would be as
c under:-

Basic Pay Rs. 700.00

Dearness Allowance Rs; 311.00

D 1011.00 &
,, -t
5. The appellant joined the Bank accordingly and after about 10 years
of his service approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court with the
grievance that he had been denied some increments in "Scheme C" meant
for Officers. He also claimed for the first time aboyt his fitment in the new
E pay scale as recommended by the Pillai Committee for "Scale C" Officers
whp were categorised as 'Junior Management Gra~e Scale I' Officers by
the Committee. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Feeling ag-

....
grieved, this appeal has been filed.
..._
F 6. There is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to the benefit
conferred by the report in question. Question is whether by fixing his basic
pay at Rs. 700 at the time of his appointment itself, the benefit has been
made available to him or not. The contention of the appellant is that though
the basic pay meant for Junior Management Grade Scale I Officer as
recommended by Pillai Committee was made available to him, the fitment
G of which mention has been made in Dena Bank (Officer's) Service Regula-
tions, 1979. (hereinafter the Regulation) has not been; and it is this claim
,.,~

of his which he is pursuing. The case of the Bank on the other hand is that
the appellant is not entitled to any fitment of which mention has been made
in para 8 of the Regulation inasmuch as question of fitment can arise only
H for the existing officers and not for new appointees like the appellant. The
DURGANARAYANv. DENABANK[HANSARIA,J.] 517

further case of t.he Bank is that whatever was made available by the Pillai A
Committee's report to incumbent like the appellant had been given while
offering appointment to him, as has hen clearly stated in the offer of
appointment by which the appellant was made aware of the recomenda-
tions which he had read and noted as endorsed by him in the offer of
appointment. To this the reply of the appellant is that if anything further B
is due to him, same may not be denied on the slippery ground of estoppel,
which was also one of the reasons which had prevailed with the High
Court in dismissing the writ petition.

7. There can be !J.O denial on the facts as noted above that though
Pillai Committee's recommendations were formally made effective from 1st C
July, 1979, the same had come to be implemented with effect from Ist May,
1978; and it is because of this, that though the appella.nt's offer of appoint-
ment is dated 26th May, 1978 his basic pay was stated as Rs. 700, though
in the advertisement, which was published on 25/26 August, 1977 pursuant
to which appellant had applied, emoluments to be given were said to range D
from Rs. 325 to Rs. 925. So, the only question left for our consideration,
as already indicated, is whether anything further is due to the appellant
because of what has been stated in para 8 of the Regulation relating to
fitment.

8. According to us, the appellant is. not entitled to any amount on E
this score for the following rea~ons :

(1) Th~ question of fitment can really arise only qua those officers
> _. who were in the old scale of pay and which came to be revised pursuant
to Pillai Committees' Report, and not qua those who had already been p
given new pay scale, as was the appellant.

(2) Para 7 of the Regulation which deals with categorisation shows
that Scale 'C' post was placed in Junior Management Grade Scale I. The
appellant having been put in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1800, which as per G
the Report was meant for Junior Management Grade Scale I, there is
sufficient force in the contention advanced on behalf of the Bank in the
written submissions, filed on 11.1.95, that the appellant was not holding the
post in Seale 'C' on 1.7.79; and insofar as he is concerned, this post had
already been equated with Junior Management Grade Scale I at the time
of his appointment. H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A (3) The contention of the appellant as advanced in "Short Note of
Argument" submitted on 10.1.95 that he was entitled not only to the pay
scale laid down by the Pillai Committee Report but benefits also (which
word has been emphasised) has no cutting edge inasmuch as persual of the
Report shows that apart from the matter relating to the pay scale it dealt
B with "Amenities, Facilities and benefits in Kind" which formed subject
matter of Chapter 7 of the. Report. So, the claim of fitment cannot be
sustained on the basis of what was recommended on the score of benefits
in kind.

(4) The decision of this Court in Shri Devendra Management Trainee
C v. Punjab National Bank, JT (1993) 6 SC 537, which has been referred in
the aforesaid note of the appellant in support of his submission, does not
really advance his case, because, as rightly mentioned in the written sub-
missions on behalf of the Bank, that case was different on facts. Therein
the employees were not initially appointed in the regular pay scale as
recommended by the Pillai Committee Report but were given fixed emolu-
D ments of Rs. 700. It is because of this that they were ordered to be given
the benefit of the Pillai Committee Report. Facts here are quite different.

9. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the
contention of the appellant that he is entitled to any higher emolument on
E the score of 'fitment'. But then the offer of appointment which was given
to the appellant shows that while foing his e!lloluments, Dearness Al-
lowance (D~) was mentioned as Rs. 311.50. We, however, find that DA,
as per Chart I given in the Booklet title "Pay Scales, Allowances and
perquisities of Officers in the Nationalised Banksn issued by All India
Confederation of Bank Officer's Organisations (Maharashtra State Unit),
F of those officers whose basic pay is Rs. 700 is required to be Rs. 450. If
this was so as per the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, the DA
of the appellant would be required to be raised to Rs. 450. The Bank would
verify this and do the needful within a period of two months from today by
passing a speaking order in this regard, a copy of which would be sent to
G the appellant for his information.
10. Subject to the aforesaid observation relating to change in DA, the
appeal is dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we,
however, ·make no order as to costs.

A.G. ~ppeal dismissed.