Back
High Court Of Delhi
B.N.SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 620 of 1980
Decided On : 10/08/1999
Held:
Finally the challenge to Regulation No. 17 of Regulation of 1979 is without merits. Regulation laying down service conditions of the employees of the bank were framed on account of the powers conferred on the bank by Section 19 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. Regulation of 1979 were framed by the bank with the approval and consent of Reserve Bank of India as well as of the Central Government. thereforee, no legal infirmity can be inferred in the same.
Regulation No. 17 provides that the promotion to all grades of officers in the bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board of Directors from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any. Regulation 17 is thus an enabling provision conferring powers on the bank to frame promotion policies subject to the guidelines of the Government. Vesting of such a power by no means can be arbitrary as it is to be based on the guidelines to be provided by the Government. As pointed out by the respondent bank identical provision as that of Regulation No. 17 in fact are operating in all the nationalised banks. Similarly 1978 and 1979 promotional policies were based on the recommendations of the Committees chaired by Shri Laxmi Narayan and Shri Pillai. They were appointed with the approval of the Central Government. Their recommendations were followed uniformly by all the banks in the banking industry. Thus framing of Regulation No. 17 which is an enabling provision thereby conferring power on the bank subject to the guidelines of the Government can neither be ultra virus of Section 12(2) nor of Section 19 of the Act nor can be called arbitrary.
In view of the powers vesting in bank and as per promotional policies granting promotion to officers of specialised grade did not violate any right of the petitioners much less Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. M.K. Mukherjee or of Mr. Atul Sharma that the bank by creating a specialised cadre created a class within the class. As already pointed out above and even at the risk of repetition, it must be stated that Internal Auditors/Godown Inspectors had been a separate class and the bank had been treating them so ever since 1945. thereforee, there was no question of creating a class within the class after formation of promotion policies or Regulation 1979. On the contrary if the Bank had treated differently the Internal Auditors recruited directly and those appointed after the training, it would have amounted to creation of a class within the class. Such an inequality between the same class of employees is not permissible under law. thereforee, on this count also we find no substance in the submission of the petitioners. Respondents took calculated risk in joining training for the post of Internal Auditor but they turned out to be beneficial. For that the petitioners cannot be allowed to seek parity with the respondents nor could attribute mala fide to the Bank. The petitioners in no way have been discriminated, in fact they of their own volition refused to join training because they found job onerous. This admission is apparent from the representation dated 4th June, 1997.
Petitioners at no stage represented that they were deprived of opportunity to compete with respondents or alternatively they should also be given opportunity to apply for the training. Having never expressed such a desire they cannot challenge subsequent placement of respondents in Grade D or E as vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioners only objection to the placement of the respondents in Grade D was that they should also be given the same grade because they were senior to respondents in Clerical cadre which is a non-specialised cadre. Refusal by the bank to accede to their demand in view of the
above facts cannot be termed arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS and private respondents 3 to 40 were in the clerical service of Central Bank of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the erstwhile bank) prior to its nationalisation under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Act ). The erstwhile bank had prescribed four grades for its different categories of employees which were grades d , c , b and a After the nationalisation for the bank the grades were revised into seven and categorised as grades g , f , e , d , c b and a . Petitioners 1 to 16 were promoted to Grade f (erstwhile Grade d ) i. e. the lowest grade in the officers cardres as Junior officers/sub-Accountants. Rest of the petitioners and respondents were clerical staff. Applications were invited by the bank between 1969 to 1972 from clerical staff for undergoing six months training for the Post of Assistant Internal Auditor and Assistant Godown Inspector. First of such circular was dated 25th June, 1969. It was followed vide circulars dated 27th November, 1971, 24th August, 1972 and 16th October, 1972 respectively. One of the term of the circular was that the person found competent and suitable on the basis of the report received from the Internal Auditor or Godown Inspector would be posted and promoted to work as Assistant to Assistant Internal Auditor or Assistant to Assistant Inspector of Godown, as the case may be, in the bank s officers cadre in future vacancies. The post of Assistant Internal Auditor and that of Assistant Godown Inspector were categorised as Grade f . Petitioners did not apply in response to these circulars. However, respondents did. Respondents No. 3,5,8, to 20,26,28 31, to 34, 36 and 39 underwent training for Internal Auditor whereas respondents 7,17,25,35,38 and 40 underwent training for Godown Inspectors. These respondents at the time of their selection were working as clerical staff of the bank. On successful completion of their training they were appointed as Assistant Internal Auditor and Assistant Inspector of Godown. Respondent, 4,5,21, to 24,27,29, and 30, they were direct appointees to the post of Assistant Internal Auditor/assistant Godown Inspector.
( 2 ) THAT the respondents after being promoted to Grade f made representation to the bank that they should also be granted and placed in grade d . They pointed out that there was disparity of pay scale between the Internal Auditors selected from amongst Chartered Accountants and those posted after successfully completing the training. They wanted it should be removed. Respondent bank accepted this request of Assistant Internal Auditors and placed them in Grade d and the Assistant Godown Inspectors in Grade e . Respondent No. 7 was promoted from Grade e to Grade d effective from date of his promotion to Grade f .
( 3 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioners was that in the said circular no mention was made that the Clerks who would be promoted to Grade f would get further promotion direct to Grade d or e without any interview or passing qualifying test. No other category officer of the bank was able to complete with them for Grade d or e . Even while according seniority to Internal Auditors and Godown Inspectors from the date of their initial appointment in Grade f , similar treatment was not accorded to other category of officers. Petitioners were not aware of these events nor were made aware of the placements of respondents in higher grade until respondent No. 5 Mr. H. S. Dhingra was made Chief Officer w. e. f. 1st March, 1977 i. e. , from Grade d to Grade c.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to petitioners the training by itself could not place the respondents in a separate category nor could confer specialised grade. They were given training simply to acquaint them with the audit work/godown inspection work. Since petitioners 1 to 16 were already working in Grade f as Junior officers/ Sub-Accountants which was at per, similar and equal in
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
