{"id":54837,"date":"1987-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987"},"modified":"2015-05-28T04:21:37","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T22:51:37","slug":"state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1399, \t\t 1987 SCR (3) 115<\/div>\n
Author: M Dutt<\/div>\n
Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nYOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1399\t\t  1987 SCR  (3) 115\n 1987 SCC  (3)\t10\t  JT 1987 (2)\t477\n 1987 SCALE  (1)937\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1991 SC1289\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\nService Law\n    State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and\nConditions  of Service) Order, 1979: Paragraphs 2(1),  3(h),\n7, 8 & 18(5)-Merger of Grade-I and Grade-II Officers  exist-\ning   on   October   1,\t 1979\tinto\tJunior\t  Management\nGrade--Probationary  Trainee  Officers appointed in  Grade-I\non October 30\/31, 1979--Fixation of inter se seniority.\nStatutory Construction\n    Repugnancy--'Definition' Clause--When repugnant to other\nprovisions.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Consequent to an agreement between the Executive Commit-\ntee  of\t the  Central Board of the appellant  Bank  and\t its\nOfficers'  Federation, in pursuance of the Pillai  Committee\nReport, the Grade-I and Grade-II Officers discharging  mana-\ngerial\tand supervisory functions, were merged into the\t new\nJunior\tManagement  Grade. It was agreed that  Officers,  of\nGrade-II would be junior to the existing officers of Grade-I\nand the seniority list would be prepared accordingly. There-\nafter,\tin exercise of powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of  s.\n43  of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 the State  Bank  of\nIndia  Officers' (Determination of Terms and  Conditions  of\nService)  Order, 1979 was made and brought into\t force\twith\neffect\tfrom October 1, 1979. Paragraph 2(1) of\t that  Order\nprovided that it shah apply to the existing officers of\t the\nBank  and  to such employees of the Bank to whom it  may  be\nmade applicable. Under paragraph 3(h) the expression \"exist-\ning officers\" was defined to mean officers in the service of\nthe  Bank  immediately prior in the  appointed\tdate,  i.e.,\nOctober\t 1, 1979. Paragraph 7 provided for the placement  of\nexisting officers on the appointed date in the corresponding\nnew  grades and scales. Paragraph 8(1) provided for  fitment\nof existing officers in the new grades, and scales of pay in\naccordance with paragraph 7, at a stage corresponding to the\nexisting grade and scale. Under paragraph 18(5) the seniori-\nty among the existing officers was to\n116\nremain\tthe  same, i.e., the Officers Grade-I were  to\trank\nsenior to Officers Grade-II.\n    Certain Probationary\/Trainee Officers, who were appoint-\ned by the Bank in Grade-I on October 30\/31, 1979 before\t the\nOrder  was  made on December 19, 1979 flied  writ  petitions\nbefore\tthe Allahabad High Court and some others before\t the\nDelhi  High  Court  claiming seniority\tover  the  erstwhile\nGrade-II  Officers, in which it\t was contended for the\tBank\nthat  since  the petitioners were not the employees  of\t the\nBank  on  October 1, 1979, i.e., the  appointed\t date,\tthey\ncould  not  be given seniority over the\t erstwhile  Grade-II\nOfficers, who were the 'existing officers' within the  mean-\ning of the expression under paragraph 3(h) of the Order.\n    The Allahabad High Court took the view that the  expres-\nsion  'existing\t officers' has to be read as  including\t the\nProbationary  Officers\tand Trainee  Officers,\totherwise  a\nrepugnancy between the definition of 'existing officers' and\nthe provisions of paragraph 7 and 8 of the Order will arise,\nthat  the  notional  date of the coming into  force  of\t the\nOrder,\tviz., October 1, 1979 is only to protect the  emolu-\nments  of  the officers and nothing else, and  directed\t the\nBank  to prepare the seniority list of its officers  accord-\ningly.\tThe Delhi High Court, however, took a contrary\tview\nand dismissed the writ petitions.\n    In these appeals by the Bank against the decision of the\nAllahabad  High\t Court\tand Special Leave  Petition  by\t the\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers against the decision  of\t the\nDelhi\t High\t Court,\t  it   was   submitted\t  for\t the\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers in support of their contention\nthat they should be considered as 'existing officers' within\nthe  meaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order, that  the\tBank\nitself\thad treated them as 'existing officers'\t by  fitting\nthem to the Junior Management Grade and giving them a higher\nstart of Rs.960 p.m., that such fitment had been made by the\nBank following the principles laid down in paragraphs 7\t and\n8  of the Order, that unless the expression 'existing  offi-\ncers' is read as including 'Probationary\/Trainee  Officers',\nthree will be a repugnancy between the definition of 'exist-\ning officers', as contained in paragraph 3(h) and the provi-\nsions  of  the\tparagraphs 7 and 8 of the  Order,  that\t the\ndefinition  of 'existing officers' is only illustrative\t and\nnot exhaustive, that the merger of officers of Grade-II\t and\nGrade-I\t into the Junior Management Grade was only  for\t the\npurpose\t of fitment in the higher scale of pay and  not\t for\nthe  purpose of seniority, that they have to  undergo  tests\nwhich were more stringent than the tests to be undergone  by\nGrade-II Officers and as such Probationary\/Trainee\n      117\nOfficers, could not be placed under Officers Grade-II in the\nseniority  list, and that the Bank had no authority to\tgive\nretrospective operation to the Order with effect from  Octo-\nber  1,\t 1979 inasmuch as s. 43 of the Act under  which\t the\nOrder  has been passed, did not authorise the Bank  to\tpass\nany such Order with retrospective effect.\n    For\t the  Bank it was contended that the order  had\t not\nbeen  made  retrospective, that all that has been  done\t was\nthat  the  Officers Grade-I and Grade-II, who  were  in\t the\nemployment  of the Bank immediately before October  1,\t1979\nhave  been merged into one category, namely, Junior  Manage-\nment  Grade, in terms of the recommendations of\t the  Pillai\nCommittee, that these Officers were already employees of the\nBank before October 1, 1979 and as such they were  'existing\nofficers' within the meaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order,\nthat  the Probationary\/Trainee Officers, who were  appointed\non 30th\/31st October, 1979 had no locus standi to  challenge\nthe Order or the merger of Officers Grade-I and Grade-II and\nthat as no order has been passed under paragraph 2(1) of the\nOrder  applying the same to the Probationary\/ Trainee  Offi-\ncers, they were outside the purview of the Junior Management\nGrade  and,  as such, were precluded  from  challenging\t the\nseniority of the erstwhile Officers of Grade-II.\n    Allowing  the appeals and dismissing the  special  leave\npetition, this Court.\n    HELD:  1. The expression 'existing officers' as  defined\nin  paragraph  3(h)  of the State Bank\tof  India  Officers'\n(Determination\tof Terms and Conditions of  Service)  Order,\n1979  means officers in the service of the Bank\t immediately\nprior  to  the appointed date, i.e., October  1,  1979.\t The\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers who were appointed by the Bank\non 30\/31st October, 1979 after the appointed date could not,\ntherefore,  be\theld to be 'existing  officers'\t within\t the\nmeaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order. [128B; F]\n    2.\tIt  is\tincorrect to say that when  an\temployee  is\nfitted\tto  a particular scale of pay of another  cadre,  he\ndoes not become a member of that cadre. In the instant case,\nthe Probationary\/Trainee Officers were placed in the  corre-\nsponding  scales of pay in the Junior Management  Grade\t for\nthe  purpose of fitment in the new scales of pay. It may  be\nthat  such fitment has been made by the Bank  following\t the\nprinciples  as laid down in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the  Order\npresumably  with  a view to removing any  disparity  between\nOfficers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II in the Junior Manage-\nment Grade, but it cannot be said that they were treated  as\nexisting officers and such fitment was made under\n118\nparagraphs  7 and 8 of the Order.  The\tProbationary\/Trainee\nOfficers  were\tnot in the service of the  Bank\t immediately\nprior  to  the appointed date. As such the  Bank  could\t not\ntreat  them as existing officers for the purpose of  fitment\nor giving a higher scale of pay. [128D-F; B]\n    3.1\t Repugnancy of the definition of any term  my  arise\nonly  if such definition does not agree with the subject  or\ncontext\t of  a particular provision. But any action  not  in\nconformity with the provision of the definition clause\twill\nnot render the definition of a term repugnant to the subject\nor  context of any provision of the statute containing\tthat\nterm. [129BC]\n    3.2\t In the instant case, there is no ambiguity  in\t the\ndefinition  of\t'existing officers', as given  in  paragraph\n3(h)  of  the Order, nor is it in any way repugnant  to\t the\nsubject or context of paragraphs 7 and 8. If the  Probation-\nary\/Trainee  Officers are treated as 'existing officers'  it\nwould be doing violence to the provision of paragraph  3(h).\n[129B; A]\n    4.\tThe definition of 'existing officers'  in  paragraph\n3(h)  does  not\t give any illustration\twhatsoever.  On\t the\ncontrary, it is quite specific and points to only one  class\nof officers who were in the service of the Bank\t immediately\nprior to the appointed date and to whom any of the rules, as\nmentioned in that paragraph were applicable. [129D]\n 5.  All the officers of the Bank at the lower level  before\nthe Probationary or Trainee Officers were appointed on 30\/31\nOctober,  1979 had agreed that they would merge into  a\t new\ngrade, and Officers Grade-I would be senior to the  Officers\nGrade-ii. When two grades of officers are merged into a\t new\ngrade,\tthe  question of inter\tse  seniority  automatically\narises and casts a duty on the employer to fix the  seniori-\nty. Paragraph 18(5) of the Order lays down that the seniori-\nty among the existing officers will remain the same, that b,\nthe  Officers Grade-I will remain senior to Officers  Grade-\nII.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the merger  was\tonly\nfor  the purpose of fitment in the higher scale and not\t for\npurposes of seniority. [130B-D; 129F]\n    6. The question is not whether the\tProbationary\/Trainee\nOfficers  have\tto undergo more stringent  tests   than\t the\ntests  to be undergone by Grade-H Officers, but whether\t the\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers were existing officers or not,\nthat  is to say, whether they were in the employment of\t the\nBank immediately prior to October 1, 1979. As they were\t not\nexisting  officers, they could not claim seniority over\t the\nOfficers of Grade-II. [130FG]\n\t   119\n    7.1 Unless the statute, under which the rules are framed\nby  the rule making authority, does not specifically  autho-\nrise  the  making of rules with retrospective  effect,\tsuch\nauthority  cannot frame any role with retrospective  effect.\n[130H- 131A]\n    Cannanore  Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v.  Collector\nof Customs and Central Excise, Cochin, & Ors.,<\/a> [1970] 2\t SCR\n830;  Income-Tax Officer, Alleppey v. M.C. Ponnoose &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1970] 1 SCR 678; Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors.,\n[1973] 1 SCR 896 and Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor, &\nOrs. v. Associated Transport Madras (P) Ltd. & Ors.,<\/a>  [1980]\n4 SCC 597, referred to.\n    7.2\t In  the instant case, it cannot be  said  that\t the\nOrder was retrospective in operation. All that has been done\nby  it is that the Officers Grade-I and Grade-II in the\t em-\nployment  of the Bank immediately prior to October  1,\t1979\nhave  been merged into one category, namely, Junior  Manage-\nment  Grade.  Although the Order was actually  published  on\nDecember  19, 1979, the Officers of the Bank who were  there\non  or before October, 1, 1979 were aware of the  fact\tthat\nthe  Order would be given effect to from October 1, 1979  as\nagreed to between the Bank and the Officers' Federation. The\nappointed date is relevant for the purpose of  applicability\nof  the\t Order to the Officers who have been  there  in\t the\nservice of the Bank immediately prior to the appointed date.\n[131E; C; 132G-133A]\n    V.T.  Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India  &  Anr.,<\/a>\n[1982] 4 SCR 411 and Reserve Bank of India v. C.N.  Sahasra-<\/a>\nnaman, [1986] Suppl. SCC 143, referred to.\n    8. The distinction in the status of Officers Grade-I and\nGrade-II  having been abolished in the instant case,  it  is\napparent that the Probationary\/Trainee Officers being  Offi-\ncers of Grade-I were of the same status and position as\t the\nOfficers of Grade-II. Admittedly, the erstwhile Officers  of\nGrade-H\t   were\t   appointed   much   earlier\t than\t the\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers. They cannot,  therefore,  be\nconsidered  senior  to\tthe  erstwhile\tOfficers   Grade-II.\n[134G-135AB]\n    9.\tThe  Probationary\/Trainee  Officers  have  not\tbeen\nbrought\t within\t the  purview of the new  cadre,  viz.,\t the\nJunior Management Grade since no order has been passed under\nparagraph  2(1) of the Order applying the same to  them.  As\nthey  are  not in the Junior Management Grade,\twhich  is  a\ncompletely  different  cadre, they have no locus  standi  to\nchallenge any benefit conferred on the Officers of the\n120\nJunior\t Management  Grade  comprising\terstwhile   Officers\nGrade-I\t and Officers Grade-II as were in the employment  of\nthe Bank prior to October 1, 1979. [134F; CD; 135C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4 125-28
\nof 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated 3.1.  1986  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 422 of 1981, 5900,
\n4207 and 5899 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n
With
\nSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3371 of 1982.
\n    From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.1981 of the\tHigh
\nCourt of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 823 of 1981.
\nS.S.  Sharma  for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.  4  125-28  of
\n1986.\n<\/p>\n
    Soli J. Sorabjee and Mrs. Madhu Sikri for the  Petition-
\ners in S.L.P- No. 3371 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
    S.N.  Kacker and R.B. Mehrotra for Respondent No.  1  in
\nC.A. No. 4 125 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    S.P. Gupta and R.B. Mehrotra for Respondent Nos. 2 to 26
\nin C.A. No. 4 125 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    Shanti  Bhushan  and R.P. Kapur for the  Respondents  in
\nS.L.P. No. 337 1 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    DUTT,  J. In these appeals by special leave and  in\t the
\nSpecial Leave Petition the dispute relates to the  seniority
\nof erstwhile Officers Grade-II and the\tProbationary\/Trainee
\nOfficers in the Grade-I of the State Bank of India.
\n    In\tthe  lower level, the State Bank of  India  had\t two
\ncategories  of officers, namely, Officers Grade-I and  Offi-
\ncers Grade-II; the function of the former was managerial and
\nthat of the latter supervisory. The conditions of service of
\nthese two categories of officers were, admit-\n<\/p>\n
121<\/span><\/p>\n
tedly,\tgoverned  by the State Bank  of\t India\t(Supervising
\nStaff)\tService Rules, hereinafter referred to as ‘the\t1975
\nRules’.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t 1975  Rules were not framed under the\trule  making
\npower  of the Government, as conferred by section 49 of\t the
\nState  Bank of India Act, but under section 43 of  the\tAct,
\nsub-section(1)\tof  which provides that the State  Bank\t may
\nappoint\t such number of officers, advisers and employees  as
\nit  considers necessary or desirable for the efficient\tper-
\nformance  of  its  functions, and determine  the  terms\t and
\nconditions  of their appointment and  service.\tSub–section
\n(2)  of section 43 provides that the officers, advisers\t and
\nemployees  of the State Bank shall exercise such powers\t and
\nperform\t such  duties as may, by general special  order,  be
\nentrusted or delegated to them by the Central Board.
\n    Although the Officers Grade-I were superior in ‘rank  to
\nthe  Officers Grade-II, there was little difference  in\t the
\npay scales of these two categories of officers. The  duties,
\nwhich were to be performed by Officers Grade-I and  Officers
\nGrade-II,  were\t also similar in nature.  Indeed,  with\t the
\nexpansion  of  the: banking activities, a  large  number  of
\nOfficers  Grade-II  were  required,  to\t perform  managerial
\nduties\twhich normally were performed by  Officers  Grade-I.
\nThe Officers’ Federation of the State Bank of India compris-
\ning  both Officers Grade-I and Grade-II had  been  demanding
\nthe  abolition of the distinction between these two  Grades.
\nThe  Bank,  however,  had been\tsuccessfully  resisting\t the
\ndemand\tmade by the Officers’ Federation from time to  time.
\nThe  Federation\t had, at one time started taking  resort  to
\nagitational method in order to force the Bank to abolish the
\ntheoretical  distinction between Officers Grade-I and  Offi-
\ncers Grade-II.\n<\/p>\n
    In the mean time, another external factor had crept into
\nthe  situation.\t The Government had appointed  a  Committee,
\nknown  as  Pillai Committee, for considering a\tquestion  of
\nstandardisation of pay and allowances of the officers  staff
\nin  the nationalised Banks. After the Pillai  Committee\t had
\nsubmitted its report, the Government declared its  intention
\nto apply the recommendations of the Pillai Committee to\t the
\nState  Bank of India as well. According to  the\t recommenda-
\ntions  of  the\tPillai Committee, there should\tnot  be\t any
\ndistinction  between  Officers\tGrade-I\t and  Grade-II.\t The
\nCommittee  recommended\tfour  Grades for  officers  and\t had
\nprovided for only one scale at the junior management  level.
\nFour Grades of officers are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
1. Top Executive Grade.\n<\/p>\n
122<\/span><\/p>\n
2. Senior Management Grade.\n<\/p>\n
3. Middle Management Grade.\n<\/p>\n
4. Junior Management Grade.\n<\/p>\n
After proposals and counter-proposals between the  Executive
\nCommittee  of the Central Board of the State Bank  of  India
\nand  the  Officers’ Federation, the Committee agreed  to  do
\naway  with  the\t distinction between  Officers\tGrade-I\t and
\nGrade-II, who would be placed in a new cadre, called  Junior
\nManagement Grade, having a scale of pay being\tScale-I–Rs.
\n700-40-900-50-1100-EB- 1200-60-1800.  It  was further agreed
\nthat  the Officers Grade-II would be junior to the  existing
\nOfficers  Grade-I and the seniority list would\tbe  prepared
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     After the said agreement was reached between the Execu-
\ntive  Committee\t of the Central Board of the State  Bank  of
\nIndia  and the Officers’ Federation, the Central  Board,  in
\nexercise  of  the  powers conferred by\tsub-section  (1)  of
\nsection 43 of the State Bank of India Act, passed an  order,
\ncalled State Bank of India Officers (Determination of  Terms
\nand  Conditions\t of  Service) Order, 1979,  for\t short\t‘the
\nOrder’, determining certain terms and conditions of  service
\nof officers in the Bank. Some of the provisions of the Order
\nwhich are relevant for our purpose are extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t “1.(1)This  order  may\t be   called
\n\t      State Bank of India Officers (Determination of
\n\t      Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979.
\n\t\t\t (2)  This  order  shall  come\tinto
\n\t      force on the 1st day of October 1979.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t2. (1) This order shall apply to the
\n\t      existing\tofficers  of the Bank  and  ‘to\t the
\n\t      officers\tof  the Bank who  are  appointed  or
\n\t      promoted\tto  any of the grades  mentioned  in
\n\t      paragraph 4 and to such other employees of the
\n\t      Bank to whom it may be made applicable by\t the
\n\t      Central  Board or the Executive  Committee  or
\n\t      the  competent  authority to  the\t extent\t and
\n\t      subject to such conditions as it may decide.
\n\t\t\t(2)  It shall not apply,  except  to
\n\t      the  extent specified by the Central Board  or
\n\t      the Executive Committee or the
\n\t       123<\/span>
\n\t      competent authority, to an officer during\t his
\n\t      tenure of service outside India or to  employ-
\n\t      ees  engaged in any country outside India\t and
\n\t      serving there.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  3. In this order, unless there is anything
\n\t      repugnant to the subject or context–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  “Appointed  Date” means the\t1st  October
\n\t      1979;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
…………………………………………….
\n…………………………………………….
\n……………………………………………
\n…………….\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (h) “Existing Officers” means all  officers
\n\t      in  the service of the Bank immediately  prior
\n\t      to  the appointed date and to whom any of\t the
\n\t      following\t sets  of  Rules as  amended  or  as
\n\t      deemed  to  have been amended  by\t appropriate
\n\t      resolutions of the Central Board or the Execu-
\n\t      tive Committee are applicable, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i) Rules governing the service of Officers in
\n\t      the Imperial Bank of India;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii) Rules governing the service of Assistants
\n\t      in the Imperial Bank of India; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii) State Bank of India (Supervising  Staff)
\n\t      Service Rules;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  4.  (1) There shall be the following\tfour
\n\t      grades  for  officers with the scales  of\t pay
\n\t      specified against each of the grades:-\n<\/p>\n
(A) Top Executive Grade:\n<\/p>\n
  Special Scale\t    —\tRs.3500 (fixed)
\n  Scale VII\t    —\tRs. 3250-125-3500
\n  Scale VI\t    —\tRs.3000- 125-3250
\n124<\/span>
\n(B) Senior Management Grade:\n<\/p>\n
\tScale V\t\t —  Rs .2500-100-3000
\n\tScale IV-A\t —  Rs.2300-100-2600
\n\tScale IV\t —  Rs. 2000-100-2400
\n(C) Middle Management Grade:\n<\/p>\n
\tScale III\t  —  Rs. 1800-75-2250
\n\tScale II\t  —   Rs. 1200-70-1550-75-2000
\n(D) Junior Management Grade:\n<\/p>\n
\tScale\t\t—  Rs.700-40-900-50-1100-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    EB- 1200-60-1800
\n\t\t\t(2)  Notwithstanding  anything\tcon-\n<\/p>\n
\t      tained  in  subparagraph (1),  a\tProbationary
\n\t      Officer  and a Trainee Officer shall,  on\t ap-
\n\t      pointment, be placed at the stage of Rs.860 in
\n\t      Scale I in the Junior Management Grade.\n<\/p>\n
…………………………….\n<\/p>\n
…………………………….\n<\/p>\n
…………………………….\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t7.  Subject  to\t the  provisions  of
\n\t      paragraph 6, existing officers serving in\t the
\n\t      grades and scales of pay mentioned in column 1
\n\t      of the table given in Schedule I to this order
\n\t      shall  be placed as on the appointed  date  in
\n\t      the grade and scale specified there against in
\n\t      column 2 of the said schedule.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tProvided  that any  difficulties  or
\n\t      anomalies\t arising out of the above  placement
\n\t      shall  be\t referred  to a\t committee  of\tsuch
\n\t      persons  as the Chairman of the Bank  may\t ap-\n<\/p>\n
\t      point  and the decision of that  committee  in
\n\t      this regard shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t8. (1) Every existing officer placed
\n\t      in any of the new grades and scales of pay  in
\n\t      accordance  with paragraph 7, shall be  fitted
\n\t      at  such stage in the new scale of pay  corre-\n<\/p>\n
\t      sponding\tto the existing grade and  scale  as
\n\t      specified in Schedule II to this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t       125<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t       (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3),  on
\n\t      being so fitted in the new scale of pay,\tsuch
\n\t      officer  shall  be eligible to draw  the\tnext
\n\t      increment-,  if any, in such new scale on\t the
\n\t      first day of the month in which he would\thave
\n\t      been  eligible to draw increment in  terms  of
\n\t      the  provisions  in this behalf prior  to\t the
\n\t      appointed date.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (3) Where two or more officers having
\n\t      different\t seniority  in\tthe  scales  of\t pay
\n\t      immediately  before  the\tappointed  date\t are
\n\t      fitted  at the same stage in the new scale  of
\n\t      pay,  different  months may be fixed  for\t the
\n\t      eligibility  of  such officers  for  the\tnext
\n\t      increment in the new scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (4)  The\t mere fact that on  the\t ap-\n<\/p>\n
\t      pointed  date an officer happens to be  posted
\n\t      in  a post categorised as that of a  grade  or
\n\t      scale  higher  than  the one in  which  he  is
\n\t      placed  in  accordance with the  provision  of
\n\t      paragraph\t 7 will not by itself  entitle\tthat
\n\t      officer to any higher placement or fitment.”
\n    The Order was actually made and published on 19th Decem-
\nber, 1979. but in view of paragraph 1(2) it came into  force
\non the first day of October, 1979. Under paragraph 2(1),  it
\nis  inter  alia provided that the Order shall apply  to\t the
\nexisting  officers of the Bank and to such employees of\t the
\nBank  to  whom it may be made  applicable.  Under  paragraph
\n3(h), the expression “existing officers” has been defined as
\nmeaning all officers in the service of the Bank, immediately
\nprior  to  the appointed date, that is to  say,\t October  1,
\n1979. Thus, it follows prima facie that the Order will apply
\nonly  to  the existing officers, that is, the  officers\t who
\nwere  in  the service of the Bank immediately prior  to\t the
\nappointed date, which is October 1, 1979. It is not disputed
\nthat  no Order has been passed by the Central Board  or\t the
\nExecutive Committee or the competent authority directing the
\napplication of the Order to employees of the Bank other than
\nthe existing officers, as provided in paragraph 2(1).
\n    Before the Order was made and published on December\t 19,
\n1979,  certain\tProbationary Officers and  Trainee  Officers
\nwere  appointed\t by the Bank in Grade-I on  October  30\t and
\nOctober 31, 1979. These Probationary\/Trainee Officers, being
\nOfficers in Grade-I were, on the dates they were  appointed,
\nsuperior in rank to the Officers Grade-II. These  Probation-
\nary\/Trainee  Officers were fitted to the  Junior  Management
\nGrade: Scale-I, after the Order was passed ereat-\n<\/p>\n
126<\/span><\/p>\n
ing  such a Grade at Rs.960 p.m. with effect from  30\/31-10-
\n1979. These Probationary\/Trainee Officers, however,  claimed
\nthat  they were seniors to the erstwhile  Officers  Grade-II
\nand that they should be placed above such Officers  Grade-II
\nin the seniority list. As the Bank had refused the claim  of
\nthese  Probationary\/Trainee Officers, to seniority over\t the
\nerstwhile Officers Grade-II in the Junior Management  Grade,
\nsome of them filed writ petitions before the Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt and some before the Delhi High Court. The Bank, howev-
\ner,  opposed the writ petitions and contended that  as\tthey
\nwere not the existing officers, that is to say, employees of
\nthe  Bank on October 1, 1979, which is the  appointed  date,
\nthey  could  not be given the seniority over  the  erstwhile
\nGrade-II Officers, who were the existing officers within the
\nmeaning of the expression under paragraph 3(h) of the Order.
\n    The\t Allahabad  High Court has taken the view  that\t the
\nexpression  “existing officers” has to be read as  including
\nthe Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers, otherwise  a
\nrepugnancy between the definition of “existing officers” and
\nthe  provisions\t of  paragraphs 7 and 8 of  the\t Order\twill
\narise.\tFurther, it has been held that the notional date  of
\nthe  coming into force of the Order, namely,  1-10-1979,  is
\nonly  to protect the emoluments of the officers and  nothing
\nelse.  In that view of the matter, the Allahabad High  Court
\ndirected  the  Bank  to prepare the seniority  list  of\t its
\nofficers in the light of the observations made in the  judg-
\nment.  Although\t it was not specifically directed  that\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers\tshould be placed  above\t the
\nofficers  in the erstwhile Grade-II in the  seniority  list,
\nyet  that  would follow from the findings made by  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
    On the other hand, the Delhi High Court took a  contrary
\nview  and dismissed the writ petitions. Though according  to
\nthe Allahabad High Court, the Probationary\/Trainee  Officers
\nshould be placed above the erstwhile officers in the  Grade-
\nII,  according to the Delhi High Court they would be  placed
\nbelow the Officers in the Grade-II. Hence, these Appeals  by
\nthe  State Bank of India and the Special Leave\tPetition  by
\nthe Probationary\/Trainee Officers.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Kacker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers, has urged that the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court was justified in holding that the writ  petition-
\ners appointed as Probationary\/Trainee Officers on  30\/31-10-
\n1979,  should be considered as the existing officers  within
\nthe meaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order. It is  submitted
\nby him that the Bank itself had treated them as
\n 127<\/span>
\nexisting  officers.  In\t support  of  that  contention,\t the
\nlearned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that the
\nBank had fitted the Probationary\/Trainee Officers  appointed
\non 30\/31-10-1979 to the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I  at
\nRs.960 p.m. Such fitment, according to the learned  counsel,
\nwas made under paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order.
\n    Paragraph  7  provides  for the  placement\tof  existing
\nofficers  on the appointed date in the corresponding  grades
\nand  scales.  It lays down, inter alia,\t that  the  existing
\nofficers  shall\t be placed as on the appointed date  in\t the
\ngrade  and scale specified in column 2 of Schedule  I.\tItem
\nNo.  9\tof column 2 specifies the Junior  Management  Grade:
\nScale-I. Paragraph 8(1) provides that every existing officer
\nplaced in any of the new grades and scales of pay in accord-
\nance with paragraph 7, shall be fitted at such stage in\t the
\nnew  scale  of pay corresponding to the existing  grade\t and
\nscale  as specified in Schedule II to the Order. It  appears
\nthat by a circular dated June 24, 1980, the following direc-
\ntions were given by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of
\nIndia:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Officers\t who were promoted on or  after\t the
\n\t      1st October 1979 but upto 31st December  1979,
\n\t      should  be  first fitted in the old  scale  in
\n\t      terms of the then existing formula and  there-
\n\t      after their basic pay should be refixed in the
\n\t      new scale for Junior Management Grade Scale  I
\n\t      in accordance with the table given below:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Basic pay in the     Basic pay in the\t Basic pay in the
\nold clerical scale   old officer’s scale junior manageme-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t nt G.S.I on the
\n\t\t\t\t\t date of promotion\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Upto   350\t\t\t500\t     950\n       370\t\t\t540\t     1000\n       390\t\t\t540\t     1000\n       420\t\t\t580\t     1200\n       450\t\t\t620\t     1200\n       480\t\t\t665\t     1260\n       515\t\t\t710\t     1320\n       550\t\t\t755\t     1380\n<\/pre>\n
\t      The  basic  pay of Probationary  Officers\t and
\n\t      Trainee Officers who were appointed during the
\n\t      period  1st  October 1979 to  3  1st  December
\n\t      1979, will also be fixed on the same basis. ”\n<\/p>\n
128<\/span><\/p>\n
    It\tis submitted on behalf of  the\tProbationary\/Trainee
\nOfficers  that it is clear from the said circular that\tthey
\nwere also treated as existing officers, otherwise they could
\nnot be given the same benefit as the other existing officers
\nof the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t existing  officers, as defined in  paragraph  3(h),
\nmeans  all officers in the service of the  Bank\t immediately
\nprior\t to    the   appointed\t date.\t  Admittedly,\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers were not in the service of the
\nBank  immediately  prior  to the appointed  date,  that\t is,
\nOctober\t 1, 1979. They cannot, therefore, be held to be\t the
\nexisting  officers  in\tthe face of the\t definition  of\t the
\nexpression in paragraph 3(h) of the Order.
\n    It\tis difficult to accept the contention of the  Proba-
\ntionary\/ Trainee Officers that they were treated by the Bank
\nas existing officers merely because they were fitted to\t the
\nJunior Management Grade: Scale-I and given a higher start at
\nRs.960 p.m. It is incorrect to say that when an employee  is
\nfitted\tto  a particular scale of pay of another  cadre,  he
\ndoes not become a member of that cadre. In the instant case,
\nthe Probationary\/Trainee Officers were placed in the  corre-
\nsponding  scales of pay in the Junior Management  Grade\t for
\nthe purpose of fitment in the new scales of pay. Indeed,  as
\nstated\talready, they were fitted to the  Junior  Management
\nGrade:\tScale-I at Rs.960 p.m. It may be that  such  fitment
\nhas  been made by the Bank following the principles as\tlaid
\ndown in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order, presumably with  a-
\nview to removing any disparity between Officers Grade-I\t and
\nOfficers  Grade\t II in the Junior Management Grade,  but  it
\nwill be difficult to accept the contention made on behalf of
\nthe Probationary\/Trainee Officers that they were treated  as
\nexisting officers and such fitment was made under paragraphs
\n7  ‘and\t 8 of the Order. The  Probationary\/Trainee  Officers
\nappointed  on 30\/31-10-1979, that is, after  1-10-1979,\t the
\nappointed date, are not existing officers within the meaning
\nof paragraph 3(h) of the Order and the Bank could not  treat
\nthem  as such for the purpose of fitment or giving a  higher
\nscale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
    We are unable to subscribe to the view of the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court that unless the expression “existing officers” is
\nread  as including the Probationary\/Trainee Officers,  there
\nwill  be  a repugnancy between the  definition\tof  existing
\nofficers, as contained in paragraph 3(h), and the provisions
\nof paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order. This view of the Allaha-
\nbad  High Court proceeds on the assumption that\t the  Proba-
\ntionary\/Trainee\t Officers having been given the\t benefit  of
\nextra  emoluments by fitting them in the  Junior  Management
\nGrade: Scale-I,
\n\t    129<\/span>
\nthey  were treated as existing officers. In our opinion,  if
\nthe  Probationary\/Trainee Officers are treated\tas  existing
\nofficers.  it  will be doing violence to the  provisions  of
\nparagraph  3(h)..We do not think that the definition of\t the
\nexpression  “existing officers”, as given in paragraph\t3(h)
\nis, in any way, repugnant to the provisions of paragraphs  7
\nand 8 of the Order. On the contrary, it is quite in  harmony
\nwith  the said provisions and also the other  provisions  of
\nthe  Order.  There  is no ambiguity  in\t the  definition  of
\n“existing  officers” and in regard to paragraphs 7 and 8  of
\nthe  Order there is no repugnancy of the definition  to\t the
\nsubject or context. Repugnancy of the definition of any term
\nmay  arise only if such definition does not agree  with\t the
\nsubject\t or context of a particular provision. But,  surely,
\nany  action  not  in conformity with the  provision  of\t the
\ndefinition  clause will not render the definition of a\tterm
\nrepugnant to the subject or context of any provision of\t the
\nstatute\t containing the term. We are also unable  to  accept
\nthe convention of Mr. Kacker that the definition of  “exist-
\ning  officers” is only illustrative and not  exhaustive\t and
\nthat such narrow definition does not fit in everywhere.\t The
\ndefinition does not give any illustration whatsoever, and it
\nis  wrong to submit that the definition is illustrative.  On
\nthe contrary, the definition trader paragraph 3(h) is  quite
\nspecific and points to only one class of officers, that\t is,
\nthe officers who were in the service of the Bank immediately
\nprior to the appointed date and to whom any of the rules, as
\nmentioned  in that paragraph, are applicable. In  our  view,
\ntherefore,  the Probationary\/ Trainee Officers appointed  on
\n30\/31-10-1979,\tthat is, after the appointed date,  are\t not
\nexisting officers.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis connection, we may notice the argument  of\t Mr.
\nGupta,\tlearned counsel appearing on behalf of some  of\t the
\nProbationary\/ Trainee Officers, that the merger of  Officers
\nGrade-II  and Grade-I into the Junior Management  Grade\t was
\nonly  for the purpose of fitment in the higher scale of\t pay
\nand  not for the purpose of seniority. It has  been  already
\nstated\tthat it was the demand of the Officers’\t Federation,
\nrepresenting  both Officers Grade-I and\t Officers  Grade-II,
\nthat  the  distinction between these two  Grades  should  be
\nabolished  in every. respect and, ultimately, it was  agreed
\nthat they would be placed in one grade, that is, the  Junior
\nManagement  Grade, having a higher scale of pay, subject  to
\nthis  that the Officers Grade-I will be above  the  Officers
\nGrade-II in the seniority list. It appears from the Circular
\nNo.  9 issued by the Officers’ Federation, that\t the  Pillai
\nCommittee’s  recommendations  would be\timplemented  in\t the
\nState  Bank Group from October 1, 1979. Thus, it was  agreed
\nby  the\t Officers’  Federation that a  scheme,\tnamely,\t the
\nmerger of Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II into
\n130<\/span>
\nJunior\tManagement Grade would take place with\teffect\tfrom
\nOctober 1, 1979 and that has been exactly given effect to by
\nthe  Order under which the existing Officers, that  is,\t the
\nofficers who were in the employment of the Bank\t immediately
\nprior to October 1, 1979, would be placed in the new  Junior
\nManagement Grade and to Scale-I, as contained in Schedule  I
\nto the Order. In paragraph 2(1) of the Order, provision\t has
\nbeen  made for the application of the Order to\tother  offi-
\ncers. Thus, it is clear that all the officers of the Bank in
\nthe lower level before the Probationary or Trainee  Officers
\nwere appointed on 30\/31-10-1979 agreed that they would merge
\ninto a new Grade and Officers Grade-I would be senior to the
\nOfficers  Grade-II. This was the result of  the\t recommenda-
\ntions  of the Pillai Committee suggesting that there  should
\nbe  one grade for the Officers Grade-I and II in  the  lower
\nlevel.\tIt  may be that Pillai Committee did  not  make\t any
\nrecommendation with regard to seniority, but when two grades
\nof  officers  are merged into a new grade, the\tquestion  of
\ninter  se seniority will automatically arise and it will  be
\nthe  duty  of  the employer to fix  the\t seniority.  Indeed,
\nparagraph  18  of  the Order lays down\tthe  principles\t for
\ncomputing  the seniority of the officers of the\t Bank.\tBut,
\nunder paragraph 18(5) of the Order, the seniority among\t the
\nexisting officers will remain the same. In other words,\t the
\nOfficers Grade-I will remain seniors to Officers Grade-II.
\n    Another  contention that has been made by Mr. Gupta\t for
\nthe  Probationary\\Trainee  Officers is that  these  officers
\nhave  to  undergo tests which are more\tstringent  than\t the
\ntests to be undergone by the Grade-II Officers and, as such,
\nthe Probationary\/Trainee Officers, though they were appoint-
\ned on 30\/31-10-1979, should not be placed under the Officers
\nGrade-II in the seniority list. This, in our opinion, is  an
\nargument in despair. The question is not whether the  Proba-
\ntionary\/  Trainee  Officers have to undergo  more  stringent
\ntests  than the tests to be undergone by the Grade-II  Offi-
\ncers,  but the question is whether the\tProbationary\\Trainee
\nOfficers  are  existing\t officers or not, that\tis  to\tsay,
\nwhether they were in the employment of the Bank\t immediately
\nprior to October I, 1979. As the Probationary\/Trainee  Offi-
\ncers are not existing officers, they cannot claim  seniority
\nover the Officers Grade II, who are existing officers.
\n    It\tis next contended that the Bank had no authority  to
\ngive  retrospective operation to the Order with effect\tfrom
\nOctober 1, 1979, inasmuch as section 43 of the State Bank of
\nIndia  Act under which the Order has been passed,  does\t not
\nauthorise the Bank to pass any such Order with retrospective
\neffect. It is now well settled that unless the
\n 131<\/span>
\nstatute, under which the rules are flamed by the rule making
\nauthority,  does  not specifically authorise the  making  of
\nrules with retrospective effect, such authority cannot frame
\nany rule with retrospective effect. (See Cannanore  Spinning
\nand  Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and  Central
\nExcise, Cochin & Ors.,<\/a> [1970] 2 SCR 830; Income-Tax Officer,
\nAlleppey  v.M.C.  Ponnoose & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR\t 678;  Hukam
\nChand  etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 1 SCR  896\t and
\nRegional  Transport Officer, Chittoor, & Ors. v.  Associated
\nTransport Madras (P) Ltd. & Ors.,<\/a> [1980] 4 SCC 597).
\n    Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on  behalf
\nof  the State Bank of India, however, submits that  the\t im-
\npugned\tOrder has not been made retrospective, as  contended
\non behalf of the Probationary\/Trainee Officers. All that has
\nbeen  done  by the Order is that the  Officers\tGrade-I\t and
\nGrade-II have been merged into one category, namely,  Junior
\nManagement  Grade  with effect from October 1,\t1979.  These
\nOfficers  were already employees of the Bank before  October
\n1, 1979 and, as such, they are existing officers within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  paragraph\t3(h) of the Order.  Further,  it  is
\nsubmitted by him that the Bank after considering the  injus-
\ntice done ‘to the Officers Grade-II numbering about  15,000,
\nsought\tto  remove the same by\tabolishing  the\t distinction
\nbetween\t Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II in terms  of
\nthe recommendations of the Pillai Committee by the  impugned
\nOrder with effect from October 1, 1979. It may be that there
\nwas some delay in publishing the decision of the Bank,\tthat
\nis,  the  Order,  but it cannot be said that  the  Order  is
\nretrospective in operation.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Shanti Bhushan points out that in V.T.\t Khanzode  &
\nOrs. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.,<\/a> [1982] 4 SCR 411\tthis
\nCourt  upheld the decision of the Reserve Bank of  India  as
\nregards\t the introduction of common  seniority,\t inter-group
\nand mobility amongst different grades of officers  belonging
\nto Group-I, Group-II and Group-III with retrospective effect
\nfrom  May  22,\t1974. In that case,  officers  belonging  to
\nGroup-I urged that the scheme should be brought into  effect
\nfrom January 1, 1976, while those belonging to Groups-II and
\nIII wanted the scheme to be brought into effect from January
\n1,  1970.  The Central Board of the Reserve  Bank  struck  a
\nbalance by choosing the date May 22, 1974. Chandrachud, C.J.
\ndelivering  the judgment of the Court held that it  was\t the
\nbest solution in the peculiar circumstances of the case\t and
\nthat in order to rectify the imbalances and anomalies caused
\nby  the compartmental-wise and group-wise seniority, it\t was
\nnecessary  to  give  retrospective effect  to  the  combined
\nseniority list. Further, it has been
\n132<\/span>
\nobserved by the learned Chief Justice that no scheme govern-
\ning service matter can be fool-proof and some section or the
\nother  of employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the  score
\nof  its\t expectations  being falsified or  remaining  to  be
\nfulfilled. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has also placed reliance\tupon
\nthe observation of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., in Reserve\tBank
\nof India v. C.N. Sahasranaman,<\/a> [1986] Suppl. SCC 143. It has
\nbeen  observed\tby Mukharji, J that whether there  has\tbeen
\ndenial of equality or any constitutional right infringed  or
\nnot  cannot be published where interests of large number  of
\npeople\tare concerned, in judged the abstract.\tFurther,  it
\nhas been observed that in service jurisprudence there cannot
\nbe  any\t service  rule which would satisfy  each  and  every
\nemployee  and  its  constitutionality has to  be  judged  by
\nconsidering whether it is fair, reasonable and does  justice
\nto the majority of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
    Relying  upon the above two decisions of this Court,  it
\nis  submitted on behalf of the State Bank of India  that  in
\nthe instant case also a large number of employees,  particu-
\nlarly  the  Officers Grade-II numbering about  15,000,\thave
\nbeen  benefitted.  Indeed, justice has been  done  to  these
\n15,000 employees as agreed to by the Officers’ Federation of
\nthe Bank comprising both Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade
\nII.  Counsel submits that existing officers have been  given
\nthe  benefit  of the Junior Management Grade:  Scale-I\twith
\neffect\tfrom 1.10.1979. So, the Order was also given  effect
\nto  from that date, which is the appointed date. It is\tsub-
\nmitted\tthat the Order has been given effect to\t from  1-10-
\n1979  in the interest of a large number of employees of\t the
\nBank. The Probationary\/Trainee Officers, who are only 900 in
\nnumber and appointed on 30\/31-10-1979, have no locus  standi
\nto challenge the Order or the merger of Officers Grade-I and
\nOfficers  Grade-II in one cadre, namely,  Junior  Management
\nGrade, as per the recommendations of the Pillai Committee.
\n    It\tis not disputed that negotiations had been going  on
\nbetween the Bank and the Officers’ Federation as to how\t and
\nin  what manner the recommendations of the Pillai  Committee
\naccepted  by the Government would be given effect to.  Ulti-
\nmately,\t it  was decided that the recommendations  would  be
\ngiven effect to from 1-10-1979 by merging the two categories
\nof officers who were in the employment of the Bank,  immedi-
\nately  prior  to 1-10-1979 into one  category,\tnamely,\t the
\nJunior\tManagement  Grade. Although the Order  was  actually
\npublished  on December 19, 1979, the officers of  the  Bank,
\nwho  were there on or before October 1, 1979, were aware  of
\nthe fact that the Order would be given effect to from  Octo-
\nber 1, 1979, as agreed to between
\n 133<\/span>
\nthe Bank and the Officer’s Federation. The appointed date is
\nrelevant  for the purpose of applicability of the  Order  to
\nthe officers, who had been there in the service of the\tBank
\nimmediately prior to the appointed date.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Soli Sorabjee, learned counsel appearing on  behalf
\nof  the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No. 337  1
\nof  1982, has drawn our attention to a telex  message  which
\nhas  been  communicated to all the  petitioners\t instructing
\nthem to complete their formalities and to join the duty well
\nbefore\tOctober\t 31, 1979 in their own\tinterest.  Telegrams
\nwere also sent to the petitioners to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Reference  to your selection as\tProbationary
\n\t      Officer  and  our communications\tto  you\t for
\n\t      immediate completion of necessary formalities.
\n\t      We  reiterate  that  the\tPillai\t Committee’s
\n\t      recommendations  are likely to be\t implemented
\n\t      shortly.\tIf  you\t join  after  implementation
\n\t      thereof, you shall be governed by the  revised
\n\t      terms  of service and salary scales.  You\t are
\n\t      advised  in your own interest to complete\t the
\n\t      remaining formalities viz., (1) acceptance  of
\n\t      our  offer by 20th October, 1979 and be  ready
\n\t      to join duty around 25th idem at the place  to
\n\t      be  intimated to you after completion of\tfor-
\n\t      malities, failing which the risk of change  in
\n\t      the salary structure and other conditions will
\n\t      be yours.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    From  the telex and telegraph messages, it is  contended
\nthat  they show that the Bank had decided to give effect  to
\nthe  Order with effect from 30\/31-10-1979. We are unable  to
\naccept this contention. There is no indication in the  telex
\nor  telegram  that the Order will be given  effect  to\tfrom
\nOctober\t 30\/31, 1979. The telegram really mentions  that  if
\nthe petitioners join after implementation of the recommenda-
\ntions of the Pillai Committee, they will be governed by\t the
\nrevised\t terms of service and salary scales. Indeed, it\t has
\nbeen  already  noticed\tthat after the\tappointment  of\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers on 30\/31-10-1979,  they\twere
\nfitted\tto the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and given  a
\nhigher\tstart at Rs.960 p.m. The telex and the\ttelegram  to
\nwhich our attention has been drawn, do not seem to be of any
\nconsequence  to the Probationary\/Trainee Officers  and\tdoes
\nnot  at\t all  support their contention that  the  Order\t was
\nintended to be given effect to from 30\/31-10-1979.
\n    It\tis next contended by the learned counsel.  appearing
\non  behalf  of the Probationary\/Trainee Officers,  that\t the
\nimpugned Order takes
\n134<\/span>
\naway\tthe    vested\tfight\tof    seniority\t   of\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers with retrospective effect.  In
\nelaboration of the contention, it is pointed out that on the
\nday  these  Probationary\/Trainee  Officers  were  appointed,
\nnamely,\t on  October  30\/31-10-1979,  they  were  admittedly
\nseniors\t to  the Officers Grade-II. This  seniority  of\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers has been taken away by  giving
\nretrospective  operation to the Order. It is submitted\tthat
\nthe  Bank has no authority to take away the vested right  of
\nseniority  of the Probationary\/Trainee Officers with  retro-
\nspective  effect. On the other hand, it is contended by\t Mr.
\nShanti\tBhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\t the
\nState  Bank  of India, that there is no question  of  vested
\nright  to  seniority.  Seniority is relevant  only  for\t the
\npurpose of promotion. A right to be considered for promotion
\nis  a  vested right, but a mere chance of promotion  is\t not
\nsuch  a right. It is submitted that the right of the  Proba-
\ntionary\/Trainee Officers to be considered for promotion\t has
\nnot been affected in the least by the Order, nor have  their
\nchances\t of promotion been affected. Moreover, no order\t has
\nbeen  passed under paragraph 2(1) of the Order applying\t the
\nsame  to the Probationary\/Trainee Officers.  These  Officers
\nare outside the purview of the Junior Management Grade\tand,
\nas  such, they are precluded from challenging the  seniority
\nof  the\t erstwhile Officers Grade-II, now placed in  a\tcom-
\npletely\t different category. In other words, it is the\tcon-
\ntention\t  of   the   State   Bank   of\t India\t that\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers, who have been  appointed  on
\n30\/31-10-1979  as  Officers Grade-I,  cannot  challenge\t any
\nbenefit\t that  is conferred on the officers of\ta  different
\ncadre, namely, the Junior Management Grade.
\n    It\tis not necessary for us to decide whether  there  is
\nany    vested\t right\t to   seniority\t   or\t not.\t The
\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers have not been brought  within
\nthe purview of the new cadre, that is, the Junior Management
\nGrade.\tIndeed, it is the complaint of the learned  counsel,
\nappearing  on behalf of these Officers, that they have\tbeen
\ntotally\t ignored by the Order inasmuch as no  provision\t has
\nbeen  made about them in the Order. We have already  noticed
\nthat it was the contention of the Officers’ Federation\tthat
\nthere  should not be any distinction in the status of  Offi-
\ncers  Grade-I and Officers Grade-II. It was urged that\tsuch
\ndistinction should be abolished and both these categories of
\nofficers should be placed in one category so that they\thave
\nthe  same status and position. The State Bank of  India\t ac-
\ncepted\tthe demand of the Officers’ Federation and the\tdis-
\ntinction  has  been removed. In these circumstances,  it  is
\napparent  that\tthe  Probationary\/  Trainee  Officers  being
\nOfficers Grade-I, are of the same status and position as the
\nOfficers Grade-II. Admittedly, the erstwhile Officers
\n135<\/span>
\nGrade-II    were   appointed   much   earlier\t than\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers, who were the writ petitioners
\nin the High Courts. Although they had to perform almost\t the
\nsame  duty and there was no difference between\ttheir  posi-
\ntions,\tthey  had to suffer an\tartificial  distinction\t and
\nplaced below the Officers Grade-I, who were considered to be
\nsuperior  in rank to the Officers Grade-II. After  the\tBank
\nhad decided that both these two categories of officers\twere
\nsame  in status and position and such decision\thaving\tbeen
\nimplemented,  we are afraid, it is difficult to\t accept\t the
\ncontention made on behalf of the Probationary\/Trainee  Offi-
\ncers that they should be considered senior to the  erstwhile
\nOfficers Grade-II.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, there is some force in the contention made  on
\nbehalf of the Bank that as the Probationary\/Trainee Officers
\nare not in the Junior Management Grade which is a  different
\ncadre,\tthey have no locus standi to challenge\tany  benefit
\nconferred  on  the officers of the Junior  Management  Grade
\ncomprising erstwhile Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II,
\nas  were in the employment of the Bank prior to\t October  1,
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that\t the  Proba-
\ntionary\/ Trainee Officers, with whom we are concerned,\thave
\nnot  been prejudiced in the least by the Order\thaving\tcome
\ninto force on and from October 1, 1979. The learned  counsel
\nhas  categorically stated before us that all these  officers
\nwill be included in the Junior Management Grade and an order
\nin  that regard will be passed under paragraph 2(1)  of\t the
\nOrder.\tIt  is\tpointed out by him that\t everybody  will  be
\nconsidered for promotion from the Junior Management Grade to
\nthe  Middle Management Grade. Thus, even though\t the  Proba-
\ntionary\/Trainee\t Officers  are placed  below  the  erstwhile
\nOfficers  Grade-II,  they will be allowed to appear  at\t the
\nwritten\t test,\tone of the modes prescribed  for  promotion,
\nalong with others including the erstwhile Officers Grade II,
\nprovided  they\tcomplete six years of  service\tin  Grade-I.
\nApart from this, the Probationary\/Trainee Officers have been
\nfitted\tto  the higher scale of pay in the  Scale-I  of\t the
\nJunior Management Grade, although they have not been formal-
\nly included in that Grade. In these circumstances, it cannot
\nbe  said  that the Probationary\/Trainee Officers  have\tbeen
\nprejudiced by the Order. We are sure that the Bank will take
\nimmediate   steps   for\t  applying   the   order   to\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee Officers. No other point has been urged
\non behalf of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  reasons aforesaid, the judgment of  the  Allahabad
\nHigh  Court is set aside and the Civil Appeals are  allowed.
\nThe judgment of
\n136<\/span>
\nthe  Delhi  High  Court is affirmed and\t the  Special  Leave
\nPetition  is dismissed. All the Writ Petitions filed by\t the
\nProbationary\/Trainee  Officers\tare  also  dismissed.  There
\nwill,  however,\t be  no order as to costs in  any  of  these
\nAppeals or in the Special Leave Petition.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t       Appeals\tallowed\t &  Petition\ndismissed.\n137<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1399, 1987 SCR (3) 115 Author: M Dutt Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J) PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1987 BENCH: DUTT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-27T22:51:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T22:51:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\"},\"wordCount\":6116,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T22:51:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-27T22:51:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987","datePublished":"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T22:51:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987"},"wordCount":6116,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987","name":"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T22:51:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-ors-vs-yogendra-kumar-srivastava-ors-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of India & Ors vs Yogendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 1 May, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}