1987 (5) TMI 375 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority dispute between erstwhile Officers Grade-II and Probationary/Trainee Officers in Grade-I of the State Bank of India.
2. Applicability and interpretation of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979.
3. Retrospective effect of the 1979 Order.
4. Alleged violation of vested rights of seniority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Dispute:
The primary issue in these appeals and the Special Leave Petition is the seniority dispute between erstwhile Officers Grade-II and Probationary/Trainee Officers in Grade-I of the State Bank of India. The 1975 Rules governed the conditions of service for both categories, but with the expansion of banking activities, Officers Grade-II began performing managerial duties similar to those of Officers Grade-I. The Officers' Federation demanded the abolition of the distinction between these grades, which the Bank resisted. Following the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, which proposed a single scale at the junior management level, the Bank agreed to merge Officers Grade-I and Grade-II into a new Junior Management Grade, with Officers Grade-I being senior to Officers Grade-II.

2. Applicability and Interpretation of the 1979 Order:
The State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, was passed to implement the merger of Officers Grade-I and Grade-II into the Junior Management Grade. Paragraph 3(h) of the Order defines "existing officers" as officers in the service of the Bank immediately prior to October 1, 1979. The Order was to apply to these existing officers and not to Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed on October 30 and October 31, 1979. The Allahabad High Court held that the expression "existing officers" should include Probationary/Trainee Officers to avoid repugnancy with paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order. In contrast, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, maintaining that Probationary/Trainee Officers were not "existing officers" under paragraph 3(h).

3. Retrospective Effect of the 1979 Order:
The contention was raised that the Bank had no authority to give retrospective effect to the Order from October 1, 1979, as section 43 of the State Bank of India Act does not authorize retrospective rule-making. The Supreme Court held that the Order was not retrospective but merely implemented the merger of Officers Grade-I and Grade-II into the Junior Management Grade from October 1, 1979, following negotiations and agreements between the Bank and the Officers' Federation. The Court cited previous decisions, such as V.T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India, to support the legitimacy of retrospective effect in service matters to rectify imbalances and anomalies.

4. Alleged Violation of Vested Rights of Seniority:
The Probationary/Trainee Officers argued that their vested right to seniority was taken away by the retrospective operation of the Order. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that seniority is relevant only for promotion and that the right to be considered for promotion is a vested right, not the mere chance of promotion. The Court emphasized that the Probationary/Trainee Officers were not "existing officers" and thus could not claim seniority over Officers Grade-II. The Court also noted that the Probationary/Trainee Officers had not been prejudiced by the Order, as they would be included in the Junior Management Grade and considered for promotion along with others.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and affirmed the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The Civil Appeals were allowed, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court directed the State Bank of India to take immediate steps to apply the Order to the Probationary/Trainee Officers, ensuring they were not prejudiced. No costs were awarded in any of the appeals or the Special Leave Petition.