01/06/2019
TO
SH NARENDER MODI,
PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA.
The Finance Minister, GOI
REG: CONTEMPT OF COURT: HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BY ALL CEOs of ALL NATIONALISED BANKS.
SIR,
We are more than 400 Officers having come together under the umbrella of PNBROWA, Meerut.
As you are very well aware, there are three sources of law making in India:
1. Legislature;
2. Executive
3. Honourable SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
I would like to draw your kind attention to para 9 of the judgement in GIRISH MITTAL .... Petitioner Versus PARVATI V. SUNDARAM & ANR. …. Respondent (s): Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016,In (Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015) dated 26.4.2019 DATED 26.4.2019 delivered by SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, to quote:
“The directions issued by this Court are general in nature and any violation of such directions would enable an aggrieved party to file a contempt petition”.
We are constrained to bring it to your kind notice that almost all the PSU Banks don’t appear to have any mechanism to implement the general directions/law-points established/clarified by Hon’ble SCI. Else we fail to understand how so many general directions/lawpoints contained in judgements of the Honourable SCI remain yet to be implemented by all of them. Details are mentioned hereinafter:
SL. NO. NAME OF CASE CITATION/
REFERENCE NO. POINT OF LAW ESTABLISHED
1 Canara Bank Vs. Pensioners SLP No 20661-20668/2012 on 13.2.2018 ‘SPECIAL PAY’ : is part of Wages/Basic Pay.
2 Jeevanlal Ltd. Etc Vs. The Appellate Authority: dated 29.8.1984: 1984 AIR 1842: “Wages last drawn” explained
3 Bank Of Baroda & Anr Vs G Palani & Ors bearing CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 of 2012: has held in -PARA 15 :-
That joint notes were invalid, and, SPECIAL PAY’ : is part of Wages/Basic Pay.
4. GIRISH MITTAL .... Petitioner Versus PARVATI V. SUNDARAM & ANR. …. Respondent (s): Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016,In (Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015) dated 26.4.2019: The directions issued by this Court are general in nature and any violation of such directions would enable an aggrieved party to file a contempt petition.
5 Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T.Patel: Judgment of the Supreme Court Reported in 1998 (I) L.L.J. 1: has held as : "Para 21: The first construction gives to the words "full wages last drawn".
6. D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982: has held as:- Fundamental rights of Equality cannot be violated
The locus standi of society which seeks to enforce rights that may be available to a large number of old, infirm retirees is unquestionable as it is a non-political, non-profit, voluntary organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its members consist of public spirited citizens who have taken up the cause of ventilating legitimate public problems.
7. YK SINGLA VS PNB:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 9087 OF 2012: Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
Entitlement of employee to interest on account of delayed payment in consonance with Sec. 7-(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act;
8. Grid corporation of Orissa and ors vs r.das (2003)10: scc:297: inter-alia held that:”there cannot be two types of pay scales-one for the purpose of continuing in service upto the age of retirement and the other.
9. UPRA & Ors vs State of Karnataka &Ors:2006:9:SCC:630: inter-alia…… HELD THAT:”Pension is co-related and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.”
10. K.KUPPUSAMY & Anr Vs. State of Tamil Nadu:1998:8 SCC: 469: statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice.
Most important is the last one, entitled as: K.KUPPUSAMY & Anr Vs. State of Tamil Nadu:1998:8 SCC: 469: wherein it has been clearly held that “statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice”.
This is what had been happening through out and needs to be checked by the GOI having you as their leader. May we also submit that these CEOs are also guilty of forcing their ex employees to meet them at courts of law knowing very well that the pensioners shall be paying the fat bills out of their own pockets as compared to the managements/MD of PSU Bank shall be indulging in avoidable litigation at the cost of Taxpayers’ hard earned money/Exchequer.
Let there be a level playing field ordered by you. In case the Bank managements lose the court cases with pensioners, all the legal bills plus expenditure must be recovered to the debit of their salaries.
Therefore, need of the hour is to issue a directive to all PSU Banks’ CEOs to immediately (within a fortnight) implement the Law as laid down by Honourable SCI. Else, not only an explanation be sought from them for contempt of your directives but LEVEL PLAYING FIELD BE PUT INTO PLACE so that they don’t enjoy the luxury of insulting the Pensioner on one hand and Taxpayer on the other by way of wasting the Exchequer on avoidable litigation by them.
Hope to be responded sooner than later.
Yours faithfully,
NARESH KUMAR MITTAL,
(MOBILE: 9557744700)
(EMAIL ID: mittalnareshk@yahoo,com )
SECRETARY:
PNB RETIRED OFFICIALS WELFARE ASSOCIATION:
E 1/803, SUPERTECH FLATS,
MODIPURAM,
MEERUT-
UTTAR PRADESH-250110
