Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2349 (DEL)

SOM DUTT CHHABRA v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-09-18

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the appellant had sought for a direction that the respondents should extend and increase the ex-gratia payment to retirees of the punjab National Bank and bring them at par with other government departments and public sector undertakings. ( 3 ) LEARNED Single Judge after examining the reliefs and the factual position held that there cannot be a direction of the nature that was sought by the appellant in the writ petition. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal is filed on which we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has drawn our attention to the letter of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 30th June, 2006. He had particularly relied upon the contents thereof to the effect that the government as a welfare measure agreed to provide ex-gratia relief to the pre-1986 retirees @ 300/- per month + DA relief with effect from 1st November, 1977. ( 5 ) ON consideration of the said letter, we find that by the aforesaid letter, the representation filed by the appellant was disposed of stating that the appellant cannot be equated with the employees of the Reserve Bank of India and there has always been a difference in the ex-gratia relief payable to RBI employees from the beginning and no revision has taken place in case of RBI employees. It is also indicated from the records that from August, 1998 to January, 1999, the appellant was getting an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 300/- along with the dearness relief, which comes to about Rs. 965/ -. Besides, each bank has its rules and regulations, which in many respects are not identical with the rules and regulations of the government departments and other PSUs. Each bank is entitled to frame their own rules and regulations and they are entitled to take policy decision regarding the service conditions of their employees. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a notification issued by the Ministry of Railways stating that so far as the employees of the Ministry of railways are concerned, they are getting higher ex-gratia payment. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a notification issued by the Ministry of Railways stating that so far as the employees of the Ministry of railways are concerned, they are getting higher ex-gratia payment. The aforesaid contention is again misplaced, for the employees of the Ministry of railways are governed by different set of rules and, therefore, it is open for the Ministry of Railways to have their own policy regarding payment of ex-gratia amount to the pensioners. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.