Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, Md. Mumtaz Khan, JJ.
Asok Kumar Das - Appellant
Vs.
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and Ors. - Respondents
M.A.T. No. 96 of 2015
Decided On : 29-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Debabrata Saha Roy, Indranath Mitra, Suman Sengupta, Pingal Bhattacharya, Subhankar Das
For the Respondents: C.R. Bakshi
The delay in asserting a right to promotion can erode the right and granting such promotion may upset the rights of others.
Headnote:
Promotion - Officer Scale-II (MMG) - Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, Sections 17, 29 - Rules, 1988 - Central Government's powers - Seniority cum merit basis - Supersession - Limitation - Orders of general application - Prima facie case eroded
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the promotion of the third to seventh respondents to the post of Officer Scale-II (MMG) and sought his own promotion based on seniority cum merit basis. He claimed seniority over respondent No. 6 & 7 and complained of supersession. The appellant filed a writ application in 2007, 11 years after the promotion decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the judgment and order of the lower court, dismissing the appeal. It observed that the appellant's right to claim promotion had been eroded by the passage of time and granting him promotion would upset the promotion already granted to his colleagues.
Issues: The issues involved the promotion criteria, supersession, and the delay in filing the writ application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's right to claim promotion had been eroded by delay and granting him promotion would upset the rights of his colleagues. It also discussed the principles of limitation and orders of general application.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's judgment and order. The appellant's right to be considered for promotion in the usual course was preserved.
I.P. Mukerji, J.
1. The third to seventh respondents were promoted to the post of Officer Scale-II (MMG) by a circular dated 20th June, 1996 of the respondent bank, with effect from 7th June, 1996. A writ was filed in this Court in or about August, 2007 by the appellant challenging this promotion and seeking a direction on the respondent bank to promote him to the post of an officer (MMG) Scale-II with effect from the date the said respondents were promoted. The appellant also claimed all the benefits of orders in an earlier writ dated 21st April, 2005 and 12th April, 2007 as mentioned in prayer-(b) of the petition, in that writ in relation to those employees.
2. The appellant claims seniority over respondent No. 6 & 7. He claims that the promotion from JMG-I to officers MMG-II was to be on seniority-cum-merit basis on promotion of confirmed officers working in the bank. His complaint is that this basic selection criteria was Changed by the respondent-bank by allocating 50 marks for seniority (5 marks for each completed year of service). The marks for assessment of appraisal report and interview were 30 and 20 marks respectively.
3. Mr. Saha Roy for the appellant argues that the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 17 and 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 framed the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotions of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988. He contends that Rule 7 read with paragraph 7 of the 2nd schedule to the rules provides that an Area Manager or Senior Manager could be recruited by promotion only based on seniority cum merit All sponsored banks and Regional Rural Banks were to follow these rules in the case of promotion from scale I to scale II (MMG). According to the appellant the Board of Directors of the Howrah Gramin Bank at its 80th meeting held on 26th December, 1995 had taken a resolution adopting a selection criteria which was in conflict with the said rules.
4. The appellant complains of supersession by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been promoted to scale-III.
5. In the seniority list, the appellant was uppermost Nirmal Kr. Maity (serial No. 6), Kalyan Nandi (serial No. 21), Asok Kr. Sen (serial No. 22), Sukumar Jatua (serial No. 23) and Dipankar Basu (serial No. 26) in the list who had also been superseded filed a writ application in this Court in 1996 (CO No. 12840(W) of 1996 Sri Nirmal Kr. Maity and Ors. v. Howrah Gramin Bank and Ors.).
6. On 21st April, 2005 these writs were allowed by Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas. On or about 21st August, 2007 this writ application was filed.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that by awarding five marks for each completed year of service with a maximum of 50 marks, an officer with 10 years' seniority could claim the same benefit of seniority as a person with a much longer period of service as an officer.
8. If an employee has a claim to promotion on the ground of seniority his cause of action arises on the day he is eligible for such promotion and is denied the same. In this case the cut off date for consideration of the eligibility criteria was 31st March, 1995. The circular of the bank conveying its decision to promote officers from JMG-I to officers MMG-II was published on 2nd January, 1996. The interview was held on 31st January, 1996. The promotion order was made on 20th June, 1996.
9. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 the Supreme Court opined that a person aggrieved by an order of supersession should approach the Court within six months or at most within year after such promotion. This view was reiterated by the highest Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others v. State of Orissa and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471. The basic principle is that limitation runs from the date of accrual of cause of action, against a party. In other words, a party is expected to take prompt action on accrual of his cause of actio
