The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee's delay in challenging the revision of pay and the lack of merit in the claims can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition. The court emphasized the importance of raising objections in a timely manner and being aware of the service conditions.

1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to adopt the uniform formula in respect of D.A., stagnation increments and leave encashment applicable to the Banking Industry/RBI and accordingly, re-fix the pay and pension of the writ petitioner and pay the arrears.

2. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, raised a concern with regard to the restriction of service protection provided by the respondents at the time of merger of the IDBI as IDBI Bank Limited. The Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal Act) 2003 was enacted on 30th December 2003. Clause 5 of the said Act denotes the provisions in respect of Officers and other employees of the Development Bank and the said Clause 5(1) reads as under:-

“(1) Every officer or other employee of the Development Bank (except a director of the Board or the chairman and managing director or any whole-time director) serving in the employment immediately before the appointed day shall, in so far as such officer or other employee is employed in connection with the undertaking which has vested in the Company by virtue of this Act, become, as from the appointed day, an officer or, as the case may be, other employee of the Company and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration, upon the same terms and conditions, with the same obligations and with the same rights and privileges as to leave, leave fare concession, welfare scheme, medical benefit scheme, insurance, provident fund, other funds, retirement, voluntary retirement, gratuity and other benefits as he would have held under the Development Bank if its undertaking had not vested in the Company and shall continue to do so as an officer or, as the case may be, other employee of the Company or until the expiry of a period of six months from the appointed day, if such officer or other employee opts not to continue to be the officer or other employee of the Company within such period.”

3. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, is of the opinion that the rights and privileges as to leave, leave fare concession, welfare scheme, medical benefit scheme, insurance, provident fund, other funds, retirement, voluntary retirement, gratuity and other benefits as he would have held under the Development Bank if its undertaking had not vested in the Company and shall continue to do so as an Officer or, as the case may be, other employee of the Company or until the expiry of the period of six months from the appointed day.

4. The learned Senior Counsel took an exception in this regard and urged this Court by stating that the service protection granted for six months is unsustainable in law. The principle in this regard is that, at the time of merger, the employees are entitled for service protection, including pay protection. Such a protection cannot be restricted to six months alone and the same is to be continued even after six months. In view of the restriction of service protection for six months, the writ petitioner is deprived of his monetary benefits, including D.A., stagnation increments and leave encashment as applicable. Thus, the relief sought for in this writ petition deserves to be granted.

5. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, vehemently opposed the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the writ petitioner was an Officer of IDBI Bank in the cadre of Assistant General Manager and he was very well aware of all these provisions and the protection granted in this regard by the IDBI Bank Limited at the time of merger.

6. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, contended that at the time of merger, as contemplated under the said Act, the pay protection was extended to all the employees and the pay granted originally by the erstwhile IDBI was continued without any alteration and there was no