Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On the other hand, the Delhi High Court took a contrary view and dismissed the writ petitions. Though according to the Allahabad High Court, the Probationary/Trainee Officers should be placed above the erstwhile officers in the Grade- II, according to the Delhi High Court they would be placed below the Officers in the Grade-II. Hence, these Appeals by the State Bank of India and the Special Leave Petition by the Probationary/Trainee Officers.

Mr. Kacker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Probationary/Trainee Officers, has urged that the Allahabad High Court was justified in holding that the writ petition- ers appointed as Probationary/Trainee Officers on 30/31-10- 1979, should be considered as the existing officers within the meaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order. It is submitted by him that the Bank itself had treated them as existing officers. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that the Bank had fitted the Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed on 30/31-10-1979 to the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I at Rs.960 p.m. Such fitment, according to the learned counsel, was made under paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order. Paragraph 7 provides for the placement of existing officers on the appointed date in the corresponding grades and scales. It lays down, inter alia, that the existing officers shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grade and scale specified in column 2 of Schedule I. Item No. 9 of column 2 specifies the Junior Management Grade:

In this connection, we may notice the argument of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the Probationary/ Trainee Officers, that the merger of Officers Grade-II and Grade-I into the Junior Management Grade was only for the purpose of fitment in the higher scale of pay and not for the purpose of seniority. It has been already stated that it was the demand of the Officers' Federation, representing both Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II, that the distinction between these two Grades should be abolished in every. respect and, ultimately, it was agreed that they would be placed in one grade, that is, the Junior Management Grade, having a higher scale of pay, subject to this that the Officers Grade-I will be above the Officers Grade-II in the seniority list. It appears from the Circular No. 9 issued by the Officers' Federation, that the Pillai Committee's recommendations would be implemented in the State Bank Group from October 1, 1979. Thus, it was agreed by the Officers' Federation that a scheme, namely, the merger of Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II into Junior Management Grade would take place with effect from October 1, 1979 and that has been exactly given effect to by the Order under which the existing Officers, that is, the officers who were in the employment of the Bank immediately prior to October 1, 1979, would be placed in the new Junior Management Grade and to Scale-I, as contained in Schedule I to the Order. In paragraph 2(1) of the Order, provision has been made for the application of the Order to other offi- cers. Thus, it is clear that all the officers of the Bank in the lower level before the Probationary or Trainee Officers were appointed on 30/31-10-1979 agreed that they would merge into a new Grade and Officers Grade-I would be senior to the Officers Grade-II. This was the result of the recommenda- tions of the Pillai Committee suggesting that there should be one grade for the Officers Grade-I and II in the lower level. It may be that Pillai Committee did not make any recommendation with regard to seniority, but when two grades of officers are merged into a new grade, the question of inter se seniority will automatically arise and it will be the duty of the employer to fix the seniority. Indeed, paragraph 18 of the Order lays down the principles for computing the seniority of the officers of the Bank. But, under paragraph 18(5) of the Order, the seniority among the existing officers will remain the same. In other words, the Officers Grade-I will remain seniors to Officers Grade-II. Another contention that has been made by Mr. Gupta for the Probationary\Trainee Officers is that these officers have to undergo tests which are more stringent than the tests to be undergone by the Grade-II Officers and, as such, the Probationary/Trainee Officers, though they were appoint- ed on 30/31-10-1979, should not be placed under the Officers Grade-II in the seniority list. This, in our opinion, is an argument in despair. The question is not whether the Proba- tionary/ Trainee Officers have to undergo more stringent tests than the tests to be undergone by the Grade-II Offi- cers, but the question is whether the Probationary\Trainee Officers are existing officers or not, that is to say, whether they were in the employment of the Bank immediately prior to October I, 1979. As the Probationary/Trainee Offi- cers are not existing officers, they cannot claim seniority over the Officers Grade II, who are existing officers. It is next contended that the Bank had no authority to give retrospective operation to the Order with effect from October 1, 1979, inasmuch as section 43 of the State Bank of India Act under which the Order has been passed, does not authorise the Bank to pass any such Order with retrospective effect. It is now well settled that unless the statute, under which the rules are flamed by the rule making authority, does not specifically authorise the making of rules with retrospective effect, such authority cannot frame any rule with retrospective effect. (See Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin & Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 830; Income-Tax Officer, Alleppey v.M.C. Ponnoose & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 678; Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 1 SCR 896 and Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor, & Ors. v. Associated Transport Madras (P) Ltd. & Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 597). Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India, however, submits that the im- pugned Order has not been made retrospective, as contended on behalf of the Probationary/Trainee Officers. All that has been done by the Order is that the Officers Grade-I and Grade-II have been merged into one category, namely, Junior Management Grade with effect from October 1, 1979. These Officers were already employees of the Bank before October 1, 1979 and, as such, they are existing officers within the meaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order. Further, it is submitted by him that the Bank after considering the injus- tice done 'to the Officers Grade-II numbering about 15,000, sought to remove the same by abolishing the distinction between Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II in terms of the recommendations of the Pillai Committee by the impugned Order with effect from October 1, 1979. It may be that there was some delay in publishing the decision of the Bank, that is, the Order, but it cannot be said that the Order is retrospective in operation.

From the telex and telegraph messages, it is contended that they show that the Bank had decided to give effect to the Order with effect from 30/31-10-1979. We are unable to accept this contention. There is no indication in the telex or telegram that the Order will be given effect to from October 30/31, 1979. The telegram really mentions that if the petitioners join after implementation of the recommenda- tions of the Pillai Committee, they will be governed by the revised terms of service and salary scales. Indeed, it has been already noticed that after the appointment of the Probationary/Trainee Officers on 30/31-10-1979, they were fitted to the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and given a higher start at Rs.960 p.m. The telex and the telegram to which our attention has been drawn, do not seem to be of any consequence to the Probationary/Trainee Officers and does not at all support their contention that the Order was intended to be given effect to from 30/31-10-1979. It is next contended by the learned counsel. appearing on behalf of the Probationary/Trainee Officers, that the impugned Order takes away the vested fight of seniority of the Probationary/Trainee Officers with retrospective effect. In elaboration of the contention, it is pointed out that on the day these Probationary/Trainee Officers were appointed, namely, on October 30/31-10-1979, they were admittedly seniors to the Officers Grade-II. This seniority of the Probationary/Trainee Officers has been taken away by giving retrospective operation to the Order. It is submitted that the Bank has no authority to take away the vested right of seniority of the Probationary/Trainee Officers with retro- spective effect. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India, that there is no question of vested right to seniority. Seniority is relevant only for the purpose of promotion. A right to be considered for promotion is a vested right, but a mere chance of promotion is not such a right. It is submitted that the right of the Proba- tionary/Trainee Officers to be considered for promotion has not been affected in the least by the Order, nor have their chances of promotion been affected. Moreover, no order has been passed under paragraph 2(1) of the Order applying the same to the Probationary/Trainee Officers. These Officers are outside the purview of the Junior Management Grade and, as such, they are precluded from challenging the seniority of the erstwhile Officers Grade-II, now placed in a com- pletely different category. In other words, it is the con- tention of the State Bank of India that the Probationary/Trainee Officers, who have been appointed on 30/31-10-1979 as Officers Grade-I, cannot challenge any benefit that is conferred on the officers of a different cadre, namely, the Junior Management Grade. It is not necessary for us to decide whether there is any vested right to seniority or not. The Probationary/Trainee Officers have not been brought within the purview of the new cadre, that is, the Junior Management Grade. Indeed, it is the complaint of the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of these Officers, that they have been totally ignored by the Order inasmuch as no provision has been made about them in the Order. We have already noticed that it was the contention of the Officers' Federation that there should not be any distinction in the status of Offi- cers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II. It was urged that such distinction should be abolished and both these categories of officers should be placed in one category so that they have the same status and position. The State Bank of India ac- cepted the demand of the Officers' Federation and the dis- tinction has been removed. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the Probationary/ Trainee Officers being Officers Grade-I, are of the same status and position as the Officers Grade-II. Admittedly, the erstwhile Officers Grade-II were appointed much earlier than the Probationary/Trainee Officers, who were the writ petitioners in the High Courts. Although they had to perform almost the same duty and there was no difference between their posi- tions, they had to suffer an artificial distinction and placed below the Officers Grade-I, who were considered to be superior in rank to the Officers Grade-II. After the Bank had decided that both these two categories of officers were same in status and position and such decision having been implemented, we are afraid, it is difficult to accept the contention made on behalf of the Probationary/Trainee Offi- cers that they should be considered senior to the erstwhile Officers Grade-II.

Moreover, there is some force in the contention made on behalf of the Bank that as the Probationary/Trainee Officers are not in the Junior Management Grade which is a different cadre, they have no locus standi to challenge any benefit conferred on the officers of the Junior Management Grade comprising erstwhile Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II, as were in the employment of the Bank prior to October 1, 1979.

It is submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the Proba- tionary/ Trainee Officers, with whom we are concerned, have not been prejudiced in the least by the Order having come into force on and from October 1, 1979. The learned counsel has categorically stated before us that all these officers will be included in the Junior Management Grade and an order in that regard will be passed under paragraph 2(1) of the Order. It is pointed out by him that everybody will be considered for promotion from the Junior Management Grade to the Middle Management Grade. Thus, even though the Proba- tionary/Trainee Officers are placed below the erstwhile Officers Grade-II, they will be allowed to appear at the written test, one of the modes prescribed for promotion, along with others including the erstwhile Officers Grade II, provided they complete six years of service in Grade-I. Apart from this, the Probationary/Trainee Officers have been fitted to the higher scale of pay in the Scale-I of the Junior Management Grade, although they have not been formal- ly included in that Grade. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Probationary/Trainee Officers have been prejudiced by the Order. We are sure that the Bank will take immediate steps for applying the order to the Probationary/Trainee Officers. No other point has been urged on behalf of the parties.