Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7682/1993 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7682 of 1993
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
===================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
===================================
BIPINCHANDRA
UMASHANKAR JOSHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NEW
BANK OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
===================================
Appearance :
MR
YOGESH S LAKHANI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS DAXA R VYAS for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR SV RAJU for Respondent(s) :
3,
===================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 16/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioner has prayed for a direction directing the respondent Bank
to place the petitioner in MMG/Scale-II with effect from 11.12.1982
and to give all consequential benefits including the bonus, salary,
allowances, etc.
2. The
petitioner joined the respondent bank as Clerk in the year 1971 and
later on he was promoted as Accountant with effect from 9th
August 1977 in the pay scale of Rs.400-1110. The said scale was
revised to Rs.700-1800 with effect from 1st July 1979.
Thereafter in pursuance of a Circular, petitioner applied, was
called for interview and was selected for the post of Manager. The
petitioner took charge as Manager on 3rd January 1983.
3. New
Bank of India (Officer) Service Regulation, 1982 came into effect
from 1st January 1983. According to the regulations the
Bank was supposed to categorize the existing posts/scales. The
respondent Bank therefore categorized the grade/scale of the
officers of the bank and published seniority list. As per the
seniority list, 78 officers were placed in grade/scale-II with effect
from 1.2.1983 and those officers are shown from serial nos.197 to
274. According to the petitioner his name should have been shown in
the grade/scale II at serial no.262 of the said list. However, his
name was shown at serial no.612 of the seniority list for JMG
grade/scale I of the respondent Bank. According to the petitioner
thereafter also case of about 30 such officers who were also
similarly to the petitioner were considered by the respondent bank
in the year 1989 and onwards. It is contended that though the
petitioner has represented many times and even though in similar
cases Bank had extended such benefits, the petitioner was denied the
same.
4. In
short, the petitioner has challenged the promotion policy. The issued
raised in this petition is squarely covered by the decision in the
case of K.B. Sharma and another Vs. Union of India and another,
reported in (1998)9 SCC 38. Para 7 thereof reads as under;
7. A
plain reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly demonstrates that
neither the seniority of the appellants in the erstwhile Bank before
the taking over of the same nor their services as Assistant Manager,
assuming the same to be a promotion are being wiped off in any manner
so as to hold the provisions of the Promotion Policy to be
discriminatory. On the other hand the provisiosn for a determination
of itner se seniority under the Promotion Policy provide for
additional weightage for the service rendered by an employee as
Assistant Manager in the erstwhile Bank. We also find sufficient
force in the contention of Mr. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor
General that prior to taking over of the Bank the Accountants and
Assistant Managers were in the same grade scale and the Assistant
Managers were getting an additional allowance of Rs.75 p.m. for the
onerous nature of duty they were performing and, therefore, the same
is not a promotion Stricto sensu. But even otherwise the Promotional
Policy having taken care of giving additional weightage for the
services rendered by him as Assistant Manager in addition to the
length of service for determination of seniority in the cadre of
Junior Management Grade Scale I neither any part of the service thus
rendered by an employee has been ignored or can the Policy be
attached as discriminatory. We are, therefore, in agreement with the
Division Bench of the High Court, of the considered opinion that the
provisions of the Promotional Policy sought to be challenged in
these proceedings are constitutionally valid and there is no legal
infirmity in the same. Even in the matter of laying down the Policy
and criteria for promotion the very Promotional Policy, more
particularly clause 11 thereof provides for different weightage for
various factors and as such in laying down the Policy all relevant
factors have been taken into consideration.”
5. It
is held in the aforesaid decision that a plain reading of
Regulations 18(2) & (5) of the 1982 Regulations and clauses 5.1,
5.5. 6.2 and 71. of the Promotion Policy clearly demonstrates that
neither the seniority of the appellants in the erstwhile Bank before
the taking over of the same nor their services as Assistant Manager,
assuming the same to be a promotion were being wiped off in any
manner so as to hold the provisions of the Promotion Policy to be
discriminatory. On the other hand the provisions for a determination
of inter se seniority under the Promotion Policy provide for
additional weightage for the service rendered by an employee as
Assistant Manager in the erstwhile Bank. It was further held that
since prior to taking over the Bank the Accountants and Assistant
Managers were in the same grade scale and the Assistant Managers were
getting an additional allowance of Rs.75 p.m. for the onerous nature
of duty they were performing, the same is not a promotion stricto
sensu. It was further held that even otherwise, the Promotional
Policy having taken care of giving additional weightage for the
services rendered by him as Assistant Manger in addition to the
length of service for determination of seniority in the cadre of
Junior Management Grade Scale I neither any part of the service thus
rendered by an employee has been ignored or can the Policy be
attached as discriminatory.
6. In
view of the above decision, there are no merits in the petition.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute
this position. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged
with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top