JUDGMENT :

[Satish Chandra Sharma, J.]

1. The Appellant has approached this Court taking exception to the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7483/2012. In the writ petition, the Appellant sought re-fixation of his pay on the basis of the Circular No. 30/91 dated 14.08.1991 (hereinafter referred as the “1991 Circular”) issued by the Respondent.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, reveal that the Appellant joined the Indian Army for pre-commissioned training on 19.01.1959 and came to be commissioned on 11.12.1962. On 08.05.1983, the Appellant was retired from the Army. After serving in the forces, on 14.08.1989, the Appellant was re-employed under the Respondent bank as a security officer. On 14.08.1991, the Respondent bank issued Circular No. 30/91 containing certain directions for fixation of pay of commissioned officers working under the bank after reemployment. The 1991 Circular provided that for the purpose of fixation of pay of such officers, the period of pre-commission training would also be taken into account while fixing pay at the time of reemployment. In terms of the 1991 Circular, this benefit was to be provided to those officers who had either joined their pre-commission training or were commissioned between 01.11.1962 and 10.01.1968. In terms of the 1991 Circular, the Appellant found himself eligible to seek re-fixation of pay and made a representation to the Respondent bank seeking the benefit of the 1991 Circular, including increments equivalent to the entire period of service in the armed forces. Thereafter on 04.07.1996, the Respondent issued Circular No. 17/96 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Circular”), whereby the Respondent clarified that the benefit of Circular No. 30/91 would not be available to Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECOs) and Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs). The rationale behind the exclusion of these two categories of officers was that during the pre-commission training period of these officers, they were neither given the rank of commissioned officers nor allowed the commensurate scale of pay. Rather, during this period, these officers are called "Gentleman Cadets" and are entitled to a stipend, and therefore, their pre-commission period cannot be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of pay.

3. Be that as it may, the Appellant's representations for re-fixation of pay did not receive a favourable response from the Respondent bank and consequently, the first round of litigation began. The Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2932 of 2005 before this Court seeking the benefit of re-fixation of pay in terms of the 1991 Circular. It is a matter of record that the writ petition came to be dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge on 21.05.2008. This Order was appealed by the Appellant in LPA 474/2008. In the LPA, the Respondent bank contended that the 1991 Circular was applicable only for pay fixation of Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECOs) and Short Services Commissioned Officers (SSCOs), and since the Appellant did not fall in either of those categories, the 1991 Circular did not apply to the Appellant. Rejecting this argument, the Appellate Court reversed the order of the Ld. Single Judge and observed that the 1991 Circular was applicable to all commissioned officers, irrespective of whether they joined the Army through the NDA or otherwise. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Respondent for taking a fresh decision. Pursuant to this direction, the Respondent bank took a decision and the impugned order dated 05.11.2009 came to be passed against the Appellant, thereby giving cause for this second round of litigation.

4. In this round of litigation, the writ petition of the Appellant was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge vide the order impugned before us in this appeal. The learned Single Judge in his order observed that the basic stipulation for re- employment of commissioned officers under the Respondent bank was that the pay to