IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED T1-IIS THE 04" DAY OF APRIL, zoos
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOI-IAN DAS ; T T ' ~
PE ON 10 00c
WRIT BEIIIION N9. z21;zTT__ggV1%%{§'% 3-3 as I V
BET'v'v'EEN :
nun:--n--nun----
1 Sri. NAGARATHNARAJAIAH
AG-E:59YEARSV T fl .
S/OI-I.D.TAYA,PPA g " ~
wo12_K_rN<3 MArn'AGER T ' T.
STATE B.*xI~Ii€.OE,N.!YSOl{E
I1EADT.QFF*ICE,}$:Q_.RQAI?'' '
BANGALLEREE. V '
2 Sri. G--SmDAIJNGAPPA._
AGE:5'I=YEARS'* »'
s/0 LA'I'E"GANG1?.IAH "
wolucme AS. DEPUTY MANAGER
{(_PRI;€_MIS«ES DEPARZFMENT)
STA'E'E OF MYSOBJ3.
A 'OFFICEBANGALORE-9.
3 E~vsAT'TANARAYANA RAG
AGE;-55 YEARS .
T n T s/0 LATE VENKATADASAPPA
V. ' EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER
= STATE BANK OF MYSORE
(amaze 12ET_r.R_E.T)), R/Q NO. 133
3m) MMN, SBM COLONY
- :"1}'~I'u'1'v{;'-'u"~¢"I'H:'%I'xT:".'C%}'.l'{
BANGALORE-50.
flLJ\/'
U
Ah
rm?'
L'lI\.l 541111.}: L!P\.I..l.1u V J IKJA R
EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER
5 1 A 1 ts BANK GF MYSGRE
(SINCE RETIRED) R/0 No.10
GOVTNTM RAG
SESI-IADRIPURAM,BANGALORE-20.
H V RAMASWAMY
AGE:62 YEARS
SIC I-I. S.VENKAT.¢.C-H.A.R '
EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER
STATE BANK OF ?vf'1'Sx'}n.c.""'
R/O NO. 36, SBM COLONY
EANASHANKAR1' "' ' i STEXGE
SITA CIRCLE, BANGALQRE-sir. 'A 1
Szi.MKRANGAVNATI-'I 'R
AGE:62YEARS:W.. ; R .
sxo B.C.N.IYEN{1rAR a
EARLIER-Wf§3R_II;C-'r AS:-QFFICER H R
STA 1 L BAN:'.€:; Q}? N1'? SQPJE; .
NO.17.61, _ _
'0 E341 "K, i.=.3TAG<E, RAEAHNAG AR
BANGAI.ROE¥1G;~-__' = '
Sri. M i<V--B4'A1.AsLrB1zAra»1jNAY.21M
(smcE DECEASED), REP=."BY HIS SON
..... .. N
R' AS5913 v1mDc:
1?!' :A_ :44 «5,n.'u
R = "R10 No.55; SREEKRUPA
WIT}: mg!' L111 13"1'_
' INTI f'\('1('
'-0 1v.Au,V, :1 vnuoo
E3wA.'RAM,BANGALoRE-5.
s4uri...S"'I¢.11.IV'.§I-I1\IA MURTHY
AGE:61 YEARS
" ' Rs./no S.N.SRIKANTHA SASTRY
R " ~._EfiRLIER WORKING AS OFFICER
STATE BANK QF MYSQRE
R RIO No.34/21, SRIPURAM
I 'CRGS SESHADPJPURA..'£
BANGALORE-29.
kj
no
Sri, I S VENKATESH
AGE:69 YEARS
SIG I.N.SEETHARAM.A.I.Ali
EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER
STATE. B.-EJK OF I'v'IYSOP"'-'
RIO N0.83,5TI-I CROS
MYSORE BANK COLONY
HANUMANTHANAGAR " ~.
BANGALORE-50. ET1'.'~;'I
(By Sri. P s RAJAGOPAL, ADV.)
AND:
---u----
1 STATE EANKOE MYSORE -- -.
ABODYCONST1TUI'ED--UNDE!--R V ~ A A
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
(ASSOCIATE BANKS) AcT,_1959 , j'
HAVIINTGITSI-IE1:\D_.0FFICE AT. A _ - A
STATE BANK: OFMYSORE Et:ILDDsxG.f-- V.
K.G.ROAD_.. B.¢x1SIGAI.;£)RE§9' 1 '
BY ITS GE1\*F.R;',-AL MANAGER A
(OPERA-TI.0NS)"-' , A '
2 ASSOCIATEBA1*IKS"__ ..
OFFICERS
C/0 STATE BANK OETDIDERABAD
GUN FOUNI.3R'i',.}F'!DERixBAD
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS
1' E:§E.T, A,Dv., EOE R1)
" WRTTETTTTTION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
"227 OF"'«TH"E__"CQN'S'ITTu"i'ION OF IEDTA 'v'v'I'I'fi A PRAYER TO
QUASH ORDER DT. 10.11.99 VIDE ANN-J OF THE
" i.".'G.O'Aa1\A1TTEE_. CONSTTIUTED UNDER REGULADON 7 OF THE
- . 'sTATE'E.ANK OF MYSORE OFFICERS' (SERVICE) REGULATIONS,
"1979. DIRECT R1 TO PLACE THE PE'ITI'IONERS IN MIDDLE
M.AN;A.GEM_ENT GRADE SCALE 11 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.79
GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS SUCH AS
" OF SALARY, SENIORTTY AND PRQMOIIONS TO
.., O, _ 'V ' 5 f A ~ ..PfIGI-IER SCALES AND GRADES ON THAT BASIS AND ETC.
/)4/'f
U
BETWEEN :
Sri.H.N UMASHANKAR
S/'0 LATE HS. NARAYANA iVi'U"R'i""I'
AGE: 56 YEARS
CHIEF MANAGER
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
SERVICE BRANCH. N0. 2
SEN! BUILDING5 I FLQOR1
LADY CURZON ROAD
1:Amr:I..rrnD'I:: 1 1:' "in '
l.l1'l..L1\..ll'l.|.J\J'L\.l.J Ln .A . It-,I"&ladJ-Ll-I.'-»'.l"'J-lV§~'b
nu -IAI-I-'r1\'r'I'\'1-'h .|1'\'I"I1
'hAu.,I:.
11-1. -1:
v
(ySr1 R
1 sIA1*EEANIfi{R'OE MYSORE L
HAINVG HEAD O1«E1CE-AT.sTA1fE
E A'~m*"rfi=' MYSQP.EI BLEEDING '
.I.JJ. IL V-'IL \JJ1
K.G.ROAD, BA}JGAl.ROE"2...__ A 1
RE? E': rrs MANAGING TOR
2 ASSOCIATE EANIr:s
ASSOCIATION AA ~ 9
PER BY TTS GEN"SE.YC~
A . Cro S'I'A'I'EBANK OFHYDERABAD
A AEOCNDRY
.E1v1'11_a:;e;13 ._A'I_1;);. , _ ..
-. ..:A ,0 (3 'Dr ir"'= 'K nu 1:! r)
Sn. 9 'U D.V."{."'\_l_5 .Auv., rL'n.R1)
' L " PETITION IS FILEDJJNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
9227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
ESPQNDENTS
QUASH ORDER DT. 10.11.99 VIDE ANN-E OF THE
--COIVIMITTEE CONSTIIUTED UNDER REGULATION 7 OF THE
» ST-A'1'E BANK OF MYSORE OFFICERS' (SERVICE) REGULATIONS,
A " .._1979 AND ETC.
ml.»/'
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN ANT)
ILESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NAGAMOHAN DAS J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING; ;
nnnr.-n
S£.lL£.€...ali'....fl
In these writ petitions the petitioners prayed for
nature of ceitiorari to quash the order it:
C--....-..i!t§f.9 c-ns._'._1ted dune: Regu1ation_Vp:'i"..of thestete amt "o;f'iwi§,*sore
2. eel: in Middle Management
Grade Settle! in the first respondent --- the State Bank
of Mysore. "onp"c1..1o.19*r79pe~eh§' "reepondent Bank introduced the revised
service 'conditions cniied tifitate Bank of Mysore Officers Service
I (retina: 'the Regulations'). According to the
petitioners,::lee.. giegulations they are entitled to be placed in Middle
l
" l.1U.19'?9-_. Since the reaponden' B'"'i< r*f"_"ed to _"l"ce we petitioners in
"'1t4}tdGS;'~H, they approached this Court in No. seesaw: '"d
I connected matters. This Court vidc order dated 12.03.1999 disposed the
.4 writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit an application
to the respondent Bank to constitute an appropriate committee under
1.'/\/\
O'
Regulation 7 of the Regulations and to resolve the grievance of petitioners.
Accordingly. the petitioners submitted their application and the respondent
Bank constituted a Committee to go into the grievance of the V' V V'
Under the impugned order the Committee rejected the claim or petitiotiers; ~ it
Hence, these writ petitions.
categorisation and on that 'oasi ieiiiog in ivflviGS-E
as on 01.10.1979. As 4§i€f,R6glli3li0n oretiie.iie§guietioos the petitioners
who were in erstwhile_'e;Vttit!_etliff and placement in
MMGS-II .-to orroei,,i:e cooreooentiai benefits. There is no
justificatioii for not placing the petitioners in
MMGS-11 whenthere werepvatcaiieiesii The respondents arbitrarily gave
fihnentgand p1acernent_Vto': certain employees and refused to extend the
to" the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the following
deeisions. ~
z Achytanantha Swamy, Manager and others Vs. State
a V " Bank ofMyt-iore and others, ILR 1932 Kai'. 1395
V iii Order in W.A. No. 470/1983 passed by the High Court of
Judicature .Amdh_ra Pradeslh in T. Ramakrishna and others
.
Vs. The Cl’..airraai~., Ce” a
Order of the supreme Court in The Chairman, Board of
Directors of SBIAP, SLP (Civil) No. 6174/1988
12.10.1995
4. Per contra, Sri. S.G. Bhat, learned: ‘coiu1sel the
Bank contends that fitment and placement of ertsplogees wer’e.give.n ‘uflsZiéf.. *
the R_egula-o_s ,-_ely -n sen..-” – – — _ fie
V I» Eu.” ‘}’3.1a’:-v.1svzvJ:1t. He
supports the impugned order paseci V37 ‘T-1,ef€I’;é»mms*ss:”itV:tee.M Reiiance is piaced
“”” “1111, . s mm an an
I’ll’! Iguougvau, Jvfag’. .l.J +1.5 DJ\-‘ VV
:: v …..1 ,.u……. 1)’… rut… …..,._ r1………_,.: -n..__.._.| mm
13. ._11u.i udypu aim Uulwi vs K.-ll 11111 I1, 95 u I Dudlu U1
“1 ms rotors, 331′ ms’ stiother, AIR 2001 – -46-7
hss.’h%HeIgra both the side and perused the entire writ
. 1’t__is not in dispute that the ciassification of employees for
0′:
the respondent Bank had been upheld by this Court in the ease
Ms. Aehytanantha Swamy. Manager and others Vs. State Bank of
V Vt’ , is/Iysoe and others, ILR 1982 Kar. 1395. Further it is not in dispute that on
01.10.1979 the respondent bank categorised 222 posts in MMGS-II and
a-~”~
gave fitment to certain employees in MMGS-II on 01.10.1979,
01.01.1980, 01.01.1981 and 01.01.1982. For the period subsequentto
01.01.1982 the posts are tilled up by promotion under new ~ 3
policies applicable sum time to time. “As on 01.10.1979″i1.though: 10
petitioners were e1ig’ble for fitment in to
them. Accordingly the respondent Bank gave as 1on.101..10..
to those employees who sen_’,rs to ‘.I:IfiEiti’:y)n€115i_’ It is no. t2.’.e’ case Qt”
me fietitioners mat .i’eniors to *”f”” “”””‘t-§’.f=.”**–.”te~=-* ~41 “-9
“Therefore the impugned order” is racieoirdanee law and the
Regulations. I find no to..in.terfere._with the impugned
order.
7. The the petitioners’ that the respondent bank ought
to have given fitment’ to lthxepetitioners with effect from 01.10.1979 is
.unaccept;:bie to me. identical issue came up for consideration before the
sspme odes: Tarsem Qvs. State Bank of Patiala, AIR 19539 so 30
ass is is sast.i.so… e
V n ‘d_V”Sorne arguments were advanced on the question if
.. V. the of posts categorised against “Senior
V. __lfi:1nagementGrade-Scale IV” was higher than those filled
up W me initial ii men: under Regulation 1? . -d
Schedule I, the excess number of posts would automatically
go, by way of placement, to the existing officers in Grade
A without the requirement of “promotion”. The
categorisation of posts under Regulation 6 is an exercise
I’ ._/\_/\
O’
which is not in any way fettere by Regulation 7. If more
number of nests are cat’g*rised u.1″”- ‘Se:””‘r mauagi 1 t
Crade S_ale IV’ .__a__ the number .1′ exi_t1’ng
into the higher scale pursuant to Regulation 7 read
Schedule I, the proper construction to be placed Vi”
scheme of the Regulation is that thes_e~ex._t_ra » ii
posts in the higher scale would haveato be it * i
u ‘- . I .
nlunn Inc. 4. n –uv.-,…a-. ~
…… .. I 5…. 1′! …..I …..’ .. ..’
yaufiiuuust ” Idfif Rcgdfiiiu I .1 I 7.-tutu 1| -UV ‘st U llflalwl
process of acennent
,, ‘,,.
In View of the law decla:*eti’~by the in the decision
referred to supra, the claim of in MMGS-H
with eifeet {tom 01. LG. is ritzhtly rejected’ini_iite_hitttpug11ed order.
C3’u1w u fer’eonside’ratien’before the ‘I_.’1i’g”u Conn
-11 in
.A. o. 470r’i9′?:3V and iitznent waegiven to the eiigibie empioyces with
–‘e1if’ect consequential benefits. He further
Ade.-ontende_. this of Andhra Pradesh High Court came to be
awn’ H fle.(i–.byVt.l1e”.’S:u[it7ettte Court in S.L.P. No. 6174/1998. Therefore he
V eontends””that*~V oetitioners are entitled for fitment in 1\/IMGS-II with
appointed date on 01.10.1979. This contention of the
iieatited’ ‘counsel for the petitioners is unacceptable to me. The Supreme
in the ease of K. Thimmappa Vs. Chairman, Central Board of
10
§
2
5.
2
E’
§
§
tah Colrr W 1-11 was I.tp!I.-.d hv 1 is C I
nu-I –…E.- v…’ nu.-.
well a the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in L”
State Bank of Patiaia’s case, which was also upheld bythis V it at
Conn. Both in the Andhra Pradesh caseeaspéwelillasltliefv» .
Rajasthan High Court case. it was the oifficeiss ‘of.’ the l
-.1: …….-…’ 2 .
….I….. -_,..1.,…1. …1… 1.-.: ,__…..,…_1….1 4L_’!’1..e.;., .c…. _ ‘
u out as y mum, wuu mm appludulfiu um wuufi Lu: Ufitltlll
relief and no doubt the obserVation_e’t11ade By .the
Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High would suppott the vi?
contention of the petitioneijs tl1i:i cases to a meat
extent. But the judgment the
hank*s appeal against tlte ‘same, deeenot. contaitt any
nnnnnf ha rlcnuaa.-I that
run:-Ilandtxn ‘l”‘I.h:lIllI”I’,:V3″ ” ,
\llDVU”3Ul\JII-5 |nllV.’l’$l-I,,3’v l”:U \~CUIInIU\¥_ “I
on merits. But it”trans13ires”th};t the-.. judgxnent of this
Gacetamfls case_(_._l§89) 1 sec 182 :
(AIR711989. ;i=1t19s9tp’Leb.t.c. 1138) had not been
broughtto the notieefpef lt1tt::C0utt and when a Contempt ‘
Petition hadflneenVffiecil’fornon-hnpiementation, when the
nnfi Iznrl ‘Prue ynriafinn n’F flip nu-tint and Imrniinl-If n flu:
‘ LPN CW’ 9′.”‘””””V ‘,4 .1″? WW. I’M” |o’J\IIII5llln ‘U “W
“J.-‘ as
l ” tpnoticei’-of the__Court Vtheliudgtnent in Tarsel Lal Gautarn’s
ease_(‘t9s9)”1 see 132 : (AIR 1939 so 30 : 1989 Lab.I.C.
– 1133) ‘tl1e”.(j’Jou’1’et observed that the judgment in Civil Appeal
e
~ it observed by this Court in. di
‘ust be confined to its own facts and as such the judgment
of Court now to implemented. at has
posing f the contznpt
A application, when the decision of the Court in Tarsel Lal
Gautam’s case had been brought to the notice, would apply
equally to the case in hand, more so, as against a detailed
discussion of law in Tansel Lal Gautanfs case, there has
Lg… up. .1} aaaaa 4.1…. no ail rI)’|:’A .-I’… .4…’ .. 4.1-“; …l.!..
U991]. IIU UIEUHEBIUII. GI: fill, WIIIIU U13 lllflblllg Ill (1113 B
11
ppeai against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High
east as well as Pxajasthan High’ Court. “‘-‘M-‘-“=1-*”‘ we
8’1
O
areof e considered oninion that the observations of the i
a e of b id’ b.
mt hag: my agplicaflog to me gage 3;’
whiie disooging iof i
gm-.11.» mm. 41…: :4 ….-…1.-: 9.1., bgv..mI:nA;n:§;§§ it… 4′-‘…,’..–., 2
1d e theco t 1_f__ e ‘nth t;g_;;g;;g}
in Qgtgfl, and have got
(underiiiie is msz~.”a)=
n emm we made yr,’ ms—Supreme Court, the
decision ii’! the jué ;_f ‘Le’ “:_’r*’ae’aesh’§-Iiigh Court Wouici oniy be
applicable tciivtheivfeeievfeo” that’ eage’.’«V’i*ne petitioners herein are not entitled
for the relief eiaimed Vi11’11v1e*se_:w_i4it -getitions.
the reasoiismatied above, the writ petitions are hereby
fejecEeciwifl1’no’o1’de1f as to costs.
:4:
‘-‘-I
I