"Leave Travel Concession For Traveling Abroad Not A Statutory Right": Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Union Bank Officers
Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under: Concessions or facilities extended by way...
Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under:
Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an absolute right to the employees.. Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the Administrative Instruction/ Circular, granting an additional facility by way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession/facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the same.
The petitioners had challenged the impugned communication stating that the same was passed without jurisdiction, unilaterally by the bank and without following the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the benefits of leave travel concession was being enjoyed by the officers for several years and had become part of their service conditions. Thus, the same could not be discontinued without hearing the petitioner association.
On the other hand, the bank submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable as Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, contemplates Leave Travel Concession / Home Travel Concession "to any place in India by the shortest route." Thus, the regulation does not contemplate concession for travelling abroad.
The court looked into the Regulations and observed that the scheme of Leave Travel Concession, which is conferred as a right through Regulation unambiguously stipulates that the officers of the bank are eligible to travel any place in India by the shortest route. Without amending these regulations, the bank, by way of an Office Memorandum, granted the benefit to travel abroad. Thus, there was no bipartite agreement between the parties.
Even on perusal of the Office Memorandum, it becomes clear that the additional facility was extended because quite a number of Officers desire to utilise Leave Travel Concession for sightseeing tours abroad. Thus, it could be concluded that the impugned communication did not have any statutory backing. It was a decision taken in exercise of the power of discretion of the management by granting an additional benefit, not otherwise contemplated under the Service Regulations.
The court also observed that the Government of India had memorandum that the LTC to the officers of the Public Sector Undertakings and others to be restricted on par with the Government of India scheme. Thus the withdrawal of benefit by the bank was pursuant to this Government Policy which was adopted by the Indian Bank Association and which cannot be interfered with.
The court thus observed as under:
There is no further scope for any discussion or negotiation with the officers of the Union Bank of India as the withdrawal of such additional facility would not infringe the service rights or result in violation of service conditions of the officers of the Union Bank of India. Providing an opportunity in such circumstances is a futile exercise and furthermore, the officers of the Bank are not prejudiced nor their service rights are violated.
Thus, the court opined that there was no perversity with the order of the bank which warranted the interference of the court and thus dismissed the petition as being devoid of merits.
Case Title: Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another
Case No: W.P.No.14688 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy For M/s. Row and Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Anand Gopalan For M/s. Gopalan & Co.