Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 23, 1990, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 310 of 1988. By the impugned judg­ment the Division Bench has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the LPA. The appellants are the employees of the New Bank of India who joined the Bank as clerk in the year 1972. They were promoted as Accountants in the year 1977. In the year 1980 they were further promoted as Assistant Manager in the same scale of pay as that of Accoun­tant but special allowance of Rs. 75/- p.m. had been granted. These appellants had undergone some Probation­ary period and were confirmed as Assistant Manager of the Bank. While they were so continuing the Bank was itself taken over by the Union of India under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under­takings) Act, 1980. After the taking over of the Bank a set of Regula­tions were framed, called, The New Bank of India (Officers Service Regulation) 1982, providing for service conditions of the employees including the categorisation of the officers and their fitment in the new grades. The Bank also formulated a set of policy for promotion called the ‘Promotion Policy’ which provided for the inter se seniori­ty of these employees in different grades after their fitment and the mode and criteria for promotion. The appellants who were working an Assistant Manager before taking over of the Bank in the pay scale of Rs. 400-1110, which was also the scale of pay meant for Accountants were placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I alongwith the Accountants. Their seniority in the Junior Management Grade Scale I was determined under Clause 5.1 of the Promotion Policy. Being ag­grieved by their fitment into the Junior Management Grade Scale I as well as determination of their seniority in the said grade in accord­ance with the Promotion Policy they filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of Regulation 7 as well as Clauses 5.1, 5.5, 6.2 and 7.1 of the Promotion Po­licy inter alia on the ground that the Regulation in question has undone the promotion of the appellants already achieved and as such is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti­tution. It was also contended that different clauses of the Promotion Policy indicating the mode for determination of inter se seniority in the new cadre where the appellants have been filled in are also viola­tive of Articles 14 and 16 inasmuch as their promotion from the post of Accountants to the post of Assistant Manager has not been given any weightage and such Promotion Policy, more particularly Clause 5.1 thereof contravenes Sub-Regulation 5 of Regulation 18.

2. The respondents on the other hand took the stand that prior to taking over of the Bank the Accountants and Assistant Managers were drawing the same scale of pay, but those who were being posted as Assistant Manager were merely getting an allowance of Rs. 75/- per month. The word ‘promotion’ is a misnomer and, therefore, the appel­lants cannot claim any right on that score. Further stand of the respondents was that once the Bank was taken over, the employer had ample powers to determine the service conditions by framing Rules and Regulations and in exercise of such power Regulations having been framed and the post having been categorised to different grades and their fitment having been indicated there is no justification on the stand of the appellants that they could not have been fitted in Junior Management Grade Scale I alongwith the Accountants. So far as the Promotional Policy is concerned, it was the stand of the respondents that there has been no discrimination and due weightage has been given for the period an employee has served as an Assistant Manager even for determination of their seniority in the cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale I and as such there has been no discrimination nor viola­tion of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti