Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Regional Transport Officer Chittoor ... vs Associated Transport, Madras (P) Ltd. & ... on 5 September, 1980
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.
V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 5 March, 1982
Mr. Shanti Bhushan points out that in V.T. Khanzode &
Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr., [1982] 4 SCR 411 this
Court upheld the decision of the Reserve Bank of India as
regards the introduction of common seniority, inter-group
and mobility amongst different grades of officers belonging
to Group-I, Group-II and Group-III with retrospective effect
from May 22, 1974. In that case, officers belonging to
Group-I urged that the scheme should be brought into effect
from January 1, 1976, while those belonging to Groups-II and
III wanted the scheme to be brought into effect from January
1, 1970. The Central Board of the Reserve Bank struck a
balance by choosing the date May 22, 1974. Chandrachud, C.J.
delivering the judgment of the Court held that it was the
best solution in the peculiar circumstances of the case and
that in order to rectify the imbalances and anomalies caused
by the compartmental-wise and group-wise seniority, it was
necessary to give retrospective effect to the combined
seniority list. Further, it has been
132
observed by the learned Chief Justice that no scheme govern-
ing service matter can be fool-proof and some section or the
other of employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the score
of its expectations being falsified or remaining to be
fulfilled.
Cannanore Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Collector Of Customs And Central ... on 15 October, 1969
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
131
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.
Section 49 in The State Bank Of India Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The State Bank Of India Act, 1955
Reserve Bank Of India & Ors vs C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors on 30 April, 1986
Mr. Shanti Bhushan has also placed reliance upon
the observation of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., in Reserve Bank
of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, [1986] Suppl. SCC 143. It has
been observed by Mukharji, J that whether there has been
denial of equality or any constitutional right infringed or
not cannot be published where interests of large number of
people are concerned, in judged the abstract. Further, it
has been observed that in service jurisprudence there cannot
be any service rule which would satisfy each and every
employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by
considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice
to the majority of the employees.
1