His mother tongue might companypletely be different in speech and, even as far as the script is companycerned, from the language used by the local people at Gauhati.
The companytention of the appellant bank failed to find favour with the High Court which took the view that all officers at Gauhati suffered from substantially the same hardship and it pointed out that, for example, even officers from outside from Tripura who were posted at Gauhati would suffer almost the same degree of hardship as officers transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North Eastern regions although Tripu ra was in the North Eastern region.
It was the companytention of the respondent before the Gauhati High Court that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati, whether they were from the North Eastern region or outside had to live in the same companyditions and suffer from the same hardships, and hence, if any allow ance was given to the officers transferred from outside to the Gauhati office, the very same allowance should also be given to the local officers posted at Gauhati.
The scheme of adhoc incentives was introduced to tide over the problem of adequately staffing the Gauhati office.
It was clarified that the said incentives were temporary and because of the pecu lier circumstances prevailing at the moment in the North Eastern region which was regarded as a difficult region.
Non local officers experienced difficulties in getting accommodation, getting familiar with the language and so on, and some incentives had to be given to them to mitigate the hardships experi enced by them on transfer to Gauhati.
He and his family members would, therefore.
The hard ships faced by an officer say from the Western or Southern regions of India or North India posted at Gauhati would be qualitatively as well as quantitatively greater than the hardships faced by the local officers posted at Gauhati.
We may mention here that the local officers who were posted at the Gauhati did get an extra allowance in addition to their salaries but it was companysiderably smaller than the main companypensatory allowance paid to the officers from outside the NorthEastern region who were transferred to Gauhati.
These allowances were also known as special companypensatory allowances or remote locality allow ances.
It is the companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court which is sought to be impugned before us in this appeal.
The appellant declined to allow the same allow ances to local officers posted at Gauhati as were given to the officers from other regions transferred to Gauhati as stated earlier.
By a Memorandum issued by the appellant on April 11, 1985, an adhoc increase in salary was effected for number local officers and an option was given to them either to choose the adhoc increase or the special duty allowances for the period during which they were posted at Gauhati.
His children might find it difficult to get admission to a school and pursue their education at Gauhati.
Those allowances were gener ally known as special duty allowances.
The hardship and inconvenience sufferred by an officer of the appellant bank who was transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North Eastern region, would certainly be more acute than those suffered by local officers posted at Gau hati.
We are number much companycerned with the details as to how the special duty allow ances were calculated but the main special duty allowance basically companyprised 25 of basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs.400 per month.
We are of the opinion that the High Court was, with respect, in error in taking the view that officers from the North Eastern region who were posted at Gauhati.
3 107 of 1991.
The High Court took the view that the local officers of the appellant bank, Gauhati were discriminated against and directed that they must be given the same benefits as the number local officers trans ferred to Gauhati.
It was accepted that companysiderable difficulties would have to be suffered by the officers posted there who hailed from places outside the NorthEastern region.
The respondent association referred to hereinafter as the respondent represents the interests of 45 officers belonging to Grades A to C employed in the appellant bank at its unit at Gauhati.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.
In the companyn ter filed in the High Court by the appellant bank, the Deputy Chief Officer of the appellant bank averted that the hardships faced by the number local officers are greater than those faced by the local officers.
The Government of India found a similar difficulty in persuading its officers to accept postings in the NorthEastern region and they were given substantial incentives to accept transfers to the North Eastern region.
The re spondent demanded the extension of the said benefit to the local officers by its letter dated May 10, 1985.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
We are number here companycerned directly with the actual benefits granted by the Government of India but what is material is that such benefits had to be given by the Government of India.
By a letter dated December 9, 1983, certain incentives and allowances were provided by the appellant to its officers posted at Gauhati who were number from the North Eastern regions.
find it very difficult to companymunicate freely with the local people.
1990 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No.
It also emerges from the record that the Gauhati station was regarded as a hardship station by the officers who were transferred to the Gauhati unit from other regions of the companyntry.
either on transfer or otherwise, sufferred the same hardships as officers from other regions transferred to Gauhati.
They would be unfamiliar with the surroundings and the customs of the people.
K.S. Parihar and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
The companytesting respondent, being respondent No.
407 of 1985.
It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant that there was difficulty in per suading officers of the appellant posted outside the North Eastern region to accept transfers to the unit of the appel lant in the North Eastern part of the companyntry which unit was located at Gauhati in Assam.
N. Salve.
This is an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, by special leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. Special Ieave granted.
K. Goswami, Kailash Vasdev and M.J. Paul for the Respondents.
Counsel heard.
1, is an association of its officers at its Gauhati unit.
