Madras High Court upholds Indian Banks Association's decision to withdraw overseas travel under Leave Travel Concession for SBI officers
Madras High Court upholds Indian Banks Association's decision to withdraw overseas travel under Leave Travel Concession for SBI officers.
The withdrawal of such additional facility would not infringe the service rights or result in violation of service conditions of the officers of the State Bank of India.
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Indian Banks Association to unilaterally withdraw the facility for State Bank of India officers to travel overseas under its Leave Travel Concession(LTC)/Home Travel Concession (HTC).
The Court noted that withdrawal of such additional facility would not infringe the "service rights or result in violation of service conditions of the officers of the State Bank of India."
In the year 1982, the Indian Bank's Association issued a circular pursuant to bilateral discussions with the All India State Bank Officers Federation and All India Bank Officers Confederation ('Petitioners') being trade unions allowing overseas travel to be covered under the LTC facility within the eligibility of traveling within the Country. The same was reinstated in a circular in 2008. It was noted that no additional expenditure had to be borne as such overseas travel was included as per the eligibility to travel within the Country.
However, vide circular dated 07-4-2014 issued by Indian Banks Association ('R3') read with the e-Circular dated 15-4-2014 issued by State Bank of India ("R1"), the LTC covering overseas travel for SBI officers was thereby unilaterally withdrawn. Therefore, officers were not entitled to visit overseas countries as a part of LTC or HTC with immediate effect.
The present writ petition under Section 226 was filed to challenge the circulars.
The Court took to Rule 44 of the State Bank of India Officers, Service Rules, 1992 which contemplates Leave Travel Concession and Leave Encashment, and Sub Rule-1 to Rule-44 provides that :
"(1) During each block of four years, an officer shall be eligible for a leave travel concession for travel to his hometown once in each block of two years. Alternatively, he may travel in one block of two years to his hometown and the other block to any place in India by the shortest route."
It was observed that Rule 44 contemplates the LTC to be permissible to any place in India in the absence of amending the Rule to extend the benefit of Leave Travel Concession to abroad, therefore the said circular in question is issued contrary to the terms of the Rule, and hence cannot be construed as a service right extended to the officers
Reliance was placed on Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports, wherein it was observed
"We may state, at the outset, that the incentive scheme in question, as promulgated by the Government, is in the nature of concession or incentive which is a privilege of the Central Government. It is for the Government to take the decision to grant such a privilege or not. It is also a trite law that such exemptions, concessions, or incentives can be withdrawn at any time. In such circumstances, even the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel cannot be ignored."
The Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union v. Union of India held that:
"Laws, including executive action relating to economic activities, should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc., that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrine or straitjacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where having regard to the nature of the problems greater latitude require to be allowed to the legislature. The question, however, is as to whether it can be done retrospectively, thereby taking away some right that had accrued in favor of another person?"
Memorandum passed by the Government of India was taken into consideration that the LTC to the officers of the Public Sector Undertakings and others to be restricted on par with the Government of India schemes then there is a context and meaning with reference to certain foreign affairs and therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of the order impugned passed by the respondents in canceling the concession extended to travel abroad under Leave Travel Concession facility. Rule 44 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, regarding Leave Travel Concession and Leave Encashment are comprehensive and provides the procedures, definitions, etc., The said Rule alone would have Statutory enforceability.
To conclude, the Court opined that "the petitioners could not able to establish that the additional facility to travel abroad under the Leave Travel Concession is a service right or condition of service. Thus, the withdrawal would not infringe the rights of the employees nor caused any prejudice and thus, this Court does not find any perversity in respect of the decision taken for withdrawal of the additional concession granted to the officers of State Bank of India to travel abroad under Leave Travel Concession scheme. However, it is made clear that the officers are entitled to the Leave Travel Concession and Leave Encashment as contemplated under Rule 44 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992."
The Writ petition was dismissed devoid of any merit.
