Banshi Lal Chandel and Ors. vs Union Bank of India & Ors.

R. R. K. Trivedi, J.—In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Learned Counsel for parties have agreed that this petition be decided finally at this stage.

Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is a nationalised bank under the provisions of the Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners joined service under the Bank as officers in the cadre of junior management grade as direct recruits. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 joined in the year 1989 whereas petitioner No. 3 joined in 1983. As stated in the writ petition petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are still serving in the cadre of junior management grade. However, petitioner No. 3 has been promoted and now he is serving in the middle management grade.

Grievance of petitioners in this petition is against the policy formulated by the Bank for transfer of the officers. According to them under this policy a different and discriminatory procedure has been adopted by the Bank regulating transfer of the direct recruits and the promotees. The contention of the petitioner is that whereas the promotees are entitled to be transferred back to their parent State after two years, there is no such policy with regard to the direct recruits. They can only request for their transfer after completion of five years service. In the present case petitioner No. 1 is from State of Rajasthan, petitioner No. 2 is from the State of Bihar and petitioner No. 3 is from Orisssa. Their case is that they were born, brought up and educated in their parent State, their families are residing there and as they are not transferred to their home State, they are suffering hardship. It is also contended that after joining service both direct recruits as well as the promotees are absorbed in one cadre and they form one integrated cadre and belong to one class and they cannot be discriminated in matter of transfer also.

Learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that numerically the officers coming as promotees formed majority and they prevailed over and pressurised the management for laying down the policy of transfer advantageous to the promotees and the interest and grievances of the direct recruits have been ignored.

Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance in case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and another, AIR 1967 SC 1889 & The General Manager South Central Railway, Sicunderabad and another \\.A.VR. Siddhanti and others, AIR 1974 SC 1755.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the policy of transfer was formulated after taking into consideration the views of All India Union of Bank Officers Federation which is an official and recognized body representing the majority of officers of the Bank on all India basis. The policy was finalised after consensus had been arrived at. The management has taken into consideration the interest of all the groups and the policy had been framed in the larger interest of the Bank and its employees. It has been submitted that the allegations of discrimination are incorrect. The classification between the promotees and the direct recruits for the purpose of guidelines for transfer is reasonable and permissible and it has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It has been stated that the promotee officers are those officers who are promoted from the staff category serving the Bank as assistants, cashiers, accountants etc. This category of staff is not even transferred from one district to another in the same State. It is a condition of their service that they will remain in the same State. It is only on promotion to the category of officers that the question of their transfer arises which is quite late in their service with the Bank. Thus, in matter of policy of transfer, they h ive been given a different treatment. The promotees and the direct recruits though form an integrated cadre, but for this purpose promotees form a different class. As against them the direct recruits join service as officers as young persons and they start their career after joining. Thus promotees and direct recruits form a different class within the integrated cadre of junior management grade.

It has also been submitted that under Regulation 47 of Union Bank of India (Officers Service Regulations, 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), every officer is liable for transfer to any place or branch of the bank or to any place in India and this condition is equally applicable to all the officers and in the policy formulated it has been specifically provided in clause IX that nothing shall restrict the scope of any of the provisions of Regulations of 1979 and other Regulations. It has also been submitted that as the transfer policy has been formulated after consensus was arrived at between the management of All India Union of Bank Officers Federation petitioners cannot challenge the policy even though they may not be members of the Federation.

Learned counsel for respondent Bank has placed reliance is cases of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR 1974 SC p. 1 and Shamkant Narain Deshpande v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and another AIR 1993 SCI 173.

Learned Counsel for respondent has also submitted that the impugned transfer guidelines also provide for transfer on compassionate ground. The direct recruits can apply to the Bank for transfer to the State of their own choice on compassionate ground. Such requests when received are diarised and are dealt with at the appropriate turn of the concerned employee. It has also been submitted that in fact petitioner No. 2 made such a request and his name has been diarised by the Bank and he will get benefit of the same at his turn at appropriate time.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt about the legal position that after appointment, the promotees and the direct recruits form one integrated class and no discrimination can thereafter be made in favour of the recruits from one source as against the recruits from the other source. The recruits from both the sources are absorbed in one cadre and they form one class and they cannot be discriminated. The aforesaid legal position expressed K" Hon''ble Supreme Court in Roshan Lal''s case (supra) however, has some exceptions. Even in case of General Manager South Central Railway (supra), relied on by the petitioner''s Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"The fundamental right of equality means that persons in like situation and under like circumstances are entitled to be treated alike."

Following passage from the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Thloki Nath Khosa (supra) has been quoted with approval :

"The Constitutional Code of Equality and Equal Opportunity is a charter for equals. So long as employees similarly circumstanced in the same class of service are treated alike, the question of hostile discrimination does not arise. The equality of opportunity for purposes of seniority, promotion and like matters of employment is available only for persons who fall substantially, within the same class or unit of service. The guarantee of equality is not applicable as between members of distinct and different classes of the service. The Constitution does not command that in all matters of employment absolute symmetry be maintained. A wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is not intended, nor it is practicable if the administration is to run. Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible. That is to say, reasonable classification according to some principle, to recognise intelligible inequalities or to avoid or correct inequalities is allowed, but not miniclassification which creates inequality among the similarly circumstanced members of the same class or group."

Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Shamkant Narain Deshpandey (supra) again examined the legal position in this regard and held that classification of degree holders and diploma holders, executive engineers with promotion to the post of superintending engineer is permissible and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They quoted with approval para 55 the reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court p.l which reads as under:

"We are, therefore, of the opinion that though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diplomaholders does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld."

Now if the grievance of the petitioners of hostile discrimination has to be considered in the aforesaid legal position that even the employees in the same class or cadre may be treated differently if they are differently circumstanced for any reason. It is not disputed that the persons from both the sources of recruitment are otherwise being treated equal. Regulation 47 is also informally applicable to all the officers. The policy of transfer adopted by the bank is subject to rules. The Management, however, has taken into consideration the difficulties and hardships to officers on account of interState transfers with regard to language, food, social life, pursuits or education of dependants etc. and have formulated a policy. For giving a different policy to the promotee officers in matters of transfer justification has been sought to be given in para 7 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:

"At the very outset it may be pointed out that the promotee officers are those who are promoted from the staff category to the officers category of employees. Till the time of their employment in the staff category of employees, they are not shifted from their home States. This category of employees is also called the Award Staff. In fact the Award Staff is not even transferred from one district to another district in the same State. It is only on promotion to the category of officers that the question of their transfers arise, which is usually quite late in their service with the Bank. Till the time they are in the category of staff, it is a condition of their service that they will remain in the same State."

In our opinion, the aforesaid facts provide a valid and reasonable ground for having a different policy for promotee officers. The direct recruits who are at the threshold of their career and the promotee officers who are at the fag end of their career cannot be treated alike in matter of transfer though they belong to same class of service and form an integrated cadre. In advance stage of life, the conditions prevailing in the family with regard to education and marriages of children and health conditions cannot be the same as of an officer belonging to the other class of direct recruits. In these matters they are materially different. It is for this reason that in the revised policy of 1251993, Annexure 3 to the writ petition, it was provided that officers promoted to the junior management grade who have completed a period of three years in their home State as on 3151993, would be transferred out. While effecting those transfers the junior most officer below the age of 45 would be transferred out first. However, physically handicapped officers and female officers will be exempted from such exercise. Thus, the physical condition of the officer has been a consideration and in our opinion a valid consideration in giving effect to the policy of transfer. The promotee officers at the advanced stage of their career may not carry their families with them while serving in outside State. In the circumstances the desired efficiency may not be expected from them, whereas the direct recruits who have recently joined the service may not have such difficulties. The management has formulated entirely different policy with certain incentives to those officers who are willing to serve in NorthEast States.

Thus on an overall consideration we do not find any discrimination. The classification is based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in the administration. It may also be noticed that the direct recruits have also been given liberty to seek transfer to a State of their choice on making a representation. The only restriction is that representation can be made after completion of five years service. Even in case of petitioner No. 2, his representation has been accepted and his case has been diarised for being giving effect at the appropriate time and in his turn. The policy of transfer has been formulated in consultation with the All India Union of Bank Officers Federation. In policy matters this Court normally cannot interfere unless some illegality or glaring discrimination is established. We do not find any such defect in the impugned transfer policy.

For the reasons stated above, this petition has no merit and is liable to be rejected. However, we make it clear that in case petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 also make similar representations for their transfer to their home State, same shall be considered sympathetically. They have already served out of their State for sufficiently long time and this order dismissing the writ petition shall not come in their way while considering their representations.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is rejected. No order as to costs.