TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the pay structure of Regional Rural Bank employees automatically stood revised whenever the pay structure of comparable commercial bank employees was revised under later bipartite settlements, or whether such revision had to be made by the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 while maintaining parity.
Analysis: The award obtained by the employees established parity with the sponsor-bank employees for the pay structure then prevailing and was implemented by the Central Government. But the statutory scheme vested in the Central Government the power to determine remuneration of Regional Rural Bank employees, subject to due regard to comparable State Government and local authority pay structures. That power could not be nullified by reading the award as creating an automatic and perpetual escalation mechanism tied to future bipartite settlements. The Court also held that financial incapacity of the Regional Rural Banks was not a decisive factor once the tribunal's award, which had rejected that contention, had attained finality and been implemented. The proper course was for the Central Government to exercise its statutory power promptly after subsequent revisions in commercial bank pay scales, while keeping parity in view.
Conclusion: The Central Government retained authority under Section 17(1) to determine remuneration, but it had to do so in a manner that preserved parity with commercial bank employees as understood in the award and its implementation. The High Court's direction treating later bipartite settlements as automatically applicable was not sustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
