9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers in the new grade and scale of pay. Prior to coming into force of the condition of Service Order, in the State Bank of India there were different grades of officers in the organisational structure and so also in other Nationalised and Subsidiary Banks. In the year 1973 the Government of India appointed a Committee, called Pillai Committee for bringing uniformity and standardisation in the conditions of service of the officers of various Nationalised Banks. The said recommendations of the Pillai Committee was later on applied to the State Bank of India and its Associate Banks with suit able modification having regard to their special features. So far as the State Bank of India is concerned, the entire re-structuring of its officers was made by passing the conditions of Service Order which came into force on 1.10.1979. Paragraph 6 of the Order deals with categorisation. Paragraph 7 of Order deals with the placement of existing officer on the appointed date in corresponding grades and scales. Paragraph 8 deals with fitment in the new scales of pay. The aforesaid 3 paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow in extenso: Categorisation 6. (1) Having regard to the responsibilities and funct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the eligibility of such officers for the next increment in the new scale of pay. (4) The mere fact that on the appointed date an officer happens to be posted in a post categoriesd as that of a grade or scale higher than the one in which he is placed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 will not by itself entitle that officer to any higher placement or fitment. In accordance with Paragraph 7 of the Order Schedule I has been drawn up which indicates the grade and scale immediately before the appointed date in which the officer was there and the grade and scale in which he is placed on the appointed date. In the case in hand we are concerned with officers described in Items 8 and 9 of the aforesaid Schedule. The same is extracted hereinbelow in extenso: The grievance of the petitioners, who happened to be the officers of Grade I, prior to the appointed date is that while those of them who had been confirmed before 31.12.1972 they had been placed in the Middle Management Grade Scale II in the scale of pay of ₹ 1200-2000 while the unconfirmed officers of Grade I prior to 31.12.1972 have been placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I in the scale of pay o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of those, who had already been in Grade I prior to the appointed date and this placement must be held to be arbitrary. (3) In fixing 31.12.1972, as the cut off date, for the purpose of placement and fitment, the same has no reasonable nexus for the differentiation made and at any rate nothing has been indicated by the employer, and, therefore, even if a classification would be permissible, then also such classification would be hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. (4) Paragraph 7 of the Conditions of Service Order is subject to the provisions of paragraph 6. Necessarily, therefore, categorisation, having been required to be made in due consideration of the responsibility and functions exercisable, it would not be permissible under paragraph 7 to place Officers of Grade I in two different grades, some in Middle Management Grade Scale II and others in Junior Management Grade Scale I inasmuch, it would contravene the mandate engrafted in paragraph 6. (5) Confirmation, being one of the inglorious uncertainties of Government Service, depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies, as has been held by this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of restructuring. This being the position, while grafting of these officers in the newly created grade and scale, if there is a bifurcation of officers of a particular grade into two, based on their period of service, experience and other relevant factors, such bifurcation would not tantamount to treating them discriminately, and would not attract the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further urged under paragraph 6, what was required to be performed is to categories the officers, on the basis of the responsibilities and functions exercisable by such officers whereas paragraph 7 deals with the placement and paragraph 8 deals with the fitment in the new scale of pay and this being the position, notwithstanding paragraph 7 is subject to paragraph 6, there would be no bar in bifurcating the officers of a particular grade and placing them in two different grades, as has been done in the present case, if there is any reasonable basis for such bifurcation. According to the learned Counsel, the provision for confirmation, contained in paragraph 16, would not attract the mischief of inglorious uncertainty of confirmation in the service and on the other hand, it is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled: (a) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things which are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (b) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object under consideration. Article 14 of the Constitution does not insist that the classification should be scientifically perfect and a Court would not interfere unless the alleged classification results in apparent inequality. When a law is challenged to be discriminatory essentially on the ground that it denies equal treatment or protection, the question for determination by Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality but whether there is some difference which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation. Mere differentiation does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. To attract the operation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e become a reasonable basis for determination of inter se seniority. This decision in Patwardhan's case was reaffirmed in the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [1990]2SCR900 , and the Court reiterated and upheld the decision of the Court in Patwardhan But what has been stated in relation to a rule for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority, may not be applicable to all contingencies and it cannot be said that the confirmation of an employee in a particular cadre cannot form a rational basis for any purpose whatsoever. In the case in hand, under the Conditions of Service Order, a person appointed as a probationary officer or a trainee officer, is required to be on probation for a period of two years. An employee of the bank when promoted as an officer to the Junior Management Grade is required to be on probation for a period of one year. In accordance with paragraph 16 of the said Conditions of Service Order, such officers on probation, shall be confirmed in the service of the bank, if the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the employee has satisfactorily completed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Competent Authority on relevant and all germane factors, takes a decision in the matter of placement or fitment, whenever a restructuring of the cadre is made, then the Court will not be justified in examining the basis of such placement or fitment in a mathematical scale and would not ordinarily interfere with such decision, unless it is established beyond doubt that the decision is totally arbitrary or has been mala finely taken. When we examined the assertions, made by the petitioners in their writ petitions, we do not find any basis or even any pleadings of mala fides. In New Bank of India Employees' Union and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1996]3SCR322 , placement of officers of a particular bank, after its amalgamation with another bank was the subject matter of challenge and in that context, this Court had observed: The legal position is fairly settled that no scheme of amalgamation can be fool-proof and a Court would be entitled to interfere only when it comes to the conclusion that either the scheme is arbitrary or irrational or has been framed on some extraneous consideration. What has been observed in the case of amalgamation, would equally apply to a case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners. It is no doubt true that prior to the new structurising of the Management, persons from Officers Grade II were being promoted to the Officers Grade I. But in suggesting restructure of the entire managerial cadre by way of standardisation, when less category of grades have been evolved, necessarily, there would be merger of different pre-existing grades, but such merger will neither amount to demotion in any manner nor would it amount to treating unequals as equals. It is in fact a part of exercise of cadre adjustment process, after taking the decision of minimising the number of grades and, consequently, such a decision having been taken by adopting the decision of expertise body of Pillai Committee's Report, it cannot be said that the Central Board of the State Bank of India in making the conditions of Service Orders 1979, treated the Officers of Grade I who had not been confirmed on or before 31.12.1972 with hostile discrimination. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners on this score, therefore stands rejected. 7. Mr. Sibal, appearing for the Bank, no doubt has raised the contention that gross delay on the part of the employees in filing the writ petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os in the administration if those who had already retired are now directed to be re-inducted into service. A passage from the judgment of Lord Denning in Bradbury and Ors. v. London Borough of Enfield, 1967(3) All ELR 434, was also pressed into service by Mr. P.P. Rao, which it is worthwhile to quote hereunder : It has been suggested by the Chief Education Officer that, if an injunction is granted, chaos will supervene. All the arrangements have been made for the next term, the teachers appointed to the new comprehensive schools, the pupils allotted their places, and so forth. It would be next to impossible, he says, to reverse all these arrangements without complete chaos and damage to teachers, pupils and the public. I must say this: if a local authority does not fulfil the requirements of the law, this Court will see that it does fulfil them. It will not listen readily to suggestions of "chaos". The department of education and the council are subject to the rule of law and must comply with it, just like everyone else. Even if chaos should result, still the law must be obeyed; but I do not think that chaos will result. The evidence convinces me that the "chaos&q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Mr. Rao, therefore, is rejected. 11. The only other contention that survives for our consideration is the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was upheld by this Court as well as the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the State Bank of Patiala's case, which was also upheld by this Court. Both in the Andhra Pradesh case as well as the Rajasthan High Court case, it was the officers of the subsidiary bank, who had approached the Court for certain relief and no doubt the observations made by the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would support the contention of the petitioners in this batch of cases to a great extent. But the judgment of this Court, dismissing the bank's appeal against the same, does not contain any discussion, though it cannot be denied that dismissal was on merits. But it transpires that the earlier judgment of this Court in Tarsem Lal Gautam's case, (1989)ILLJ39SC , had not been brought to the notice of the Court and when a Contempt Petition had been filed for non-implementation, when the Bank asked for variation of the order and brought to the notice of the Court the judgment in Tarsem Lal Gautam's cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
