Bank Ordered to Explain Lapse in Travel Benefits and Pay Commission Implementation; Recovery from Employees Paused.

The HC issued a notice regarding the petitioner-bank's failure to extend Leave Travel Concession benefits for foreign destinations and directed the submission of affidavits concerning the non-implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations from 2008 to 2014. The court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and prohibited the petitioner-bank from making recoveries from employees during the petition's pendency, scheduling the case for further review post-pleadings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Implementation of Leave Travel Concession/Home Travel Concession benefits to employees visiting foreign destinations enroute.
2. Non-implementation of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission from 2008 to 2014.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the petitioner-bank's failure to extend Leave Travel Concession/Home Travel Concession benefits to employees visiting foreign destinations enroute, as highlighted in Circulars dated April 7, 2014, and April 15, 2014. The Additional Solicitor General informed the court about the non-extension of these benefits by the bank management, except in cases where court orders were in place. The court issued notice on the matter, with the Advocate on Record for the respondents accepting the notice. The court directed the filing of a counter affidavit within four weeks, followed by a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks. Additionally, the petitioner-bank was instructed to submit an affidavit explaining the reasons for not implementing the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations from 2008 to 2014.

2. Regarding the non-implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations during the specified period, the court ordered that the operation of the impugned judgment would remain stayed until further notice. However, the petitioner-bank was prohibited from making any recoveries from its employees during the pendency of the petition. The court scheduled the case for listing after the completion of the pleadings, indicating a comprehensive review of the issues involved and the need for further submissions before a final decision is reached.

---