2000 (12) TMI 922 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Placement of existing officers in new grades and scales under the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979.
2. Alleged discrimination against Officers Grade I based on their date of confirmation.
3. Validity of using the cut-off date of 31.12.1972 for placement and fitment.
4. Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equality before the law.
5. Delay in filing writ petitions and its impact on the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Placement of Existing Officers in New Grades and Scales:
The core issue revolves around the placement of officers in new grades and scales as per Paragraph 7 of the Service Order, which came into force on 1.10.1979. The petitioners, who were Officers Grade I before the appointed date, claimed discrimination in their placement based on their confirmation status prior to 31.12.1972. Officers confirmed before this date were placed in the Middle Management Grade Scale II, while unconfirmed officers were placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I.

2. Alleged Discrimination Against Officers Grade I Based on Their Date of Confirmation:
Petitioners argued that the bifurcation based on confirmation date was irrational and arbitrary, lacking any reasonable nexus with the objective of placement, thus violating Article 14. They contended that confirmation should not be the basis for such placement, citing the "inglorious uncertainties" associated with confirmation in government service, as held in Patwardhan's case and Direct Recruits' case.

3. Validity of Using the Cut-off Date of 31.12.1972 for Placement and Fitment:
The Court examined whether the cut-off date of 31.12.1972 had a rational basis. The bank justified this date based on the probation period and guidelines for minimum service required for placement in Middle Management Grade Scale II. The Court found the date to be rational and not arbitrary, as it was determined by relevant and germane factors.

4. Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution Regarding Equality Before the Law:
The Court reiterated that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but allows reasonable classification. It upheld the classification made by the bank, stating that it was based on intelligible differentia with a rational relation to the objective sought. The bifurcation of officers based on confirmation date was deemed reasonable and not discriminatory.

5. Delay in Filing Writ Petitions and Its Impact on the Case:
The bank argued that the delay in filing writ petitions (from 1988 to 1998) should disentitle the petitioners from relief. The Court acknowledged the delay but decided not to dismiss the petitions solely on this ground, emphasizing the need to address the alleged infraction of fundamental rights. However, since no violation of fundamental rights was found, the petitions were ultimately dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the placement and fitment of officers as per Paragraph 7 of the Service Order. It found the classification based on confirmation date to be rational and not in violation of Article 14. The delay in filing the petitions did not affect the outcome, as no fundamental rights were infringed. The Court also condoned the delay in filing the substitution application in one of the transfer petitions.