SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 76

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD CJI., S.M. FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
V. T. Khanzode and others, Petitioners
Versus
Reserve Bank of India and another, Respondents.
Writ Petitions Nos. 4158-4182 of 1978
Decided on 5-3-1982.
Advocates appeared
Mr. F. S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, M/s. B. R. Agarwala and P. G. Gokhale, Advocates with him for Petitioners; Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocates M/s. I. N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar, Advocates with him (for Nos. 1 &2) and Mr. R. K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Balakrishnan and Mr. M. K. D. Namboodiry, Advocates (for No. 3 for Respondents, Mr. P. R. Mridul. Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocate with him for the Intervener.

Advocates:
B.R.AGRAWAL, B.SEN, F.S.NARIMAN, H.S.PARIHAR, I.M.SHROFF, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, P.G.GOKHALE, P.R.MRIDUL, R.K.GARG, S.BALAKRISHNAN, SHOBHA DIXIT, URMILA KAPUR

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 16 and 32 - Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 - Service matter - Grades of officers - Seniority list - Challenging the decision of the Reserve Bank of India as regards the introduction of common seniority and inter-group mobility amongst different, grades of officers belonging to Group I (Section A), Group II and Group III, with retrospective effect from May 22, 1974 - That decision or order is contained in Administration Circular as also in office Order No. 679 dated April 27, 1978 and has been acted upon in draft combined seniority list of officers in Grade B (appointed as such prior to Jan. 1, 1970) and in Grades C D E and F. The contention of the petitioners is that aforesaid circular, office order and combined seniority list are violative of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution. and are also ultra vires the power jurisdiction and competence of Reserve Bank of India, being without authority of law and in contravention of provisions of Act, 1934 - Held, It was, again, on that date that the Bank had announced that a similar decision in regard to the remaining grades of officers was under its consideration - Thus, at least on May 22, 1974 it was known to officers of all grades that a combined seniority list was due to be brought into force - If a certain section of officers succeeded in obtaining promotional benefits thereafter, imbalance introduced thereby in the services of Bank and the consequent dissatisfaction had to be rectified - That could only be done by not recognising the accelerated promotions obtained in the intervening period by a certain class of officers. Shri Nariman has drawn our attention to various individual cases of officers in Group I whose old seniority has gone down by several steps in new Scheme - As we have stated earlier, any scheme of seniority is bound-to produce isolated aberrations - That cannot justify the argument that the entire scheme is for that reason violative of guarantee of equality - We are, therefore of opinion that the impugned Administration Circular, the Officer order and the Combined Seniority List are not violative of rights of petitioners under Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution - Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— These are 25 petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Reserve Bank of India as regards the introduction of common seniority and inter-group mobility amongst different, grades of officers belonging to Group I (Section A), Group II and Group III, with retrospective effect from May 22, 1974. That decision or order is contained in Administration Circular No. 8. dated January 7. 1978 as also in office Order No. 679 dated April 27, 1978 and has been acted upon in the draft combined seniority list of officers in Grade B (appointed as such prior to Jan. 1, 1970) and in Grades C D E and F. The contention of the petitioners is that the aforesaid circular, office order and combined seniority list are violative of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. and are also ultra vires the power jurisdiction and competence of the Reserve Bank of India, being without the authority of law and in contravention of the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

2. The facts leading up to the impugned decision dated Jan. 7. 1978, the office order dated April 27. 1978 and the draft combined seniority list are as follows: The Reserve Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) was established under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, hereinafter referred to as "the Act." Under the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 framed under Sec. 58 of the Act, the terms and conditions of service of the staff (including officers) of the respondent Bank were revised and regulated. These Regulations were amended from time to time. Provisions regarding record of service seniority and promotion are contained in Regulations 27 to 30 (Chapter III), which read thus:-

"27. Record of Service : A record of service shall be maintained by the Bank in respect of each employee at such place or places and shall be kept in such form and shall contain such information as may be specified from time to time by the Chief Manager.

28. Seniority: An employee confirmed in the Banks service shall ordinarily rank for seniority in his grade according to his date of confirmation in the grade and an employee on probation shall ordinarily rank for seniority among the employees selected along with him in the same batch according to the ranking assigned to him at the time of selection.

29. Promotion : All appointments and Promotions shall be made at the discretion of the Bank and notwithstanding his seniority in a grade, no employee shall have a right to be appointed or promoted to any particular post or grade.

30. (1). An employee transferred from one appointment to another or confirmed in a grade or appointment higher than his substantive grade or appointment, shall be liable to be reverted without notice at any time within one year of such transfer or confirmation.

(2) An. employee who has been appointed to officiate in a higher grade or appointment, or whose confirmation in a higher grade or appointment is subject to his undergoing probation for any specified period or otherwise shall be liable to be reverted without notice at any time when he is so officiating or undergoing probation.

(3) Nothing in sub-regulations (1) and (2) shall affect the provisions of Regulation 47."

3. Ever since the date of the Staff Regulations of 1948 and even prior thereto there were "groups" constituted for the different departments of the Reserve Bank, and officers were required to exercise irrevocable options for service in any particular Group. Those who had opted for a service in a particular Group were to be normally eligible for promotion in that Group only. The grouping was revised with effect from April, 1951 when employees were asked to exercise their option with regard to the Group of their choice. In 1951, the various departments of the Bank were re-classified into three Groups, Group I, Group II and Group III. This system of grouping continued. until 1955. in which year the Bank found it necessary to

































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top