Inderjit Sahdev vs Union Bank of India and Others

A.K. Mathur, J.—The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the orders Ex. 11 and 14 and all consequential orders may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from affecting any recovery from the salary of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be deemed to have been confirmed on the post w.e.f. 1.6.1979 as a Branch Manager and his salary should be fixed accordingly and he may be given all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.

The petitioner was appointed as a Branch Manager by the order dated 26.5.1979 on probation w.e.f. 1.12.1979 vide Anx. 1 During the probation, petitioner was ordered to draw officiating allowance of Rs. 60/- per month and he was entitled to reimburse actual expenses incurred by him towards entertainment and conveyance for bank business upto a maximum limit of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 50/- per month respectively. It is also submitted that in fact petitioner was working as a Branch Manager prior to passing of the order Anx. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner was confirmed as a Branch Manager w.e.f. 1.7.1979 by the order dated 22.6.1979 Anx. 2. It is submitted that the period of probation of the petitioner was over soon after the expiry of the six months and he was entitled to be confirmed w.e.f. 1.6.1979 as neither his period of probation was extended nor his performance was found wanting on the post. But instead of that the respondent has confirmed the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1979. It is submitted that after the confirmation of Branch Manager, petitioner insisted that his salary should be revised according to the service regulation of Branch Manager, petitioner insisted that his salary should be revised according to the service regulation as then existing. In pursuance to the same the petitioner was informed by the communication dated 19.9.1979 that since the Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1979) have come into force w.ej. 1.7.1979, therefore, it is not possible to consider his case for revision of salary on confirmation as a Branch Manager. It is also informed that the petitioner will not get any officiating allowance after his confirmation on the post of Branch Manager. It is also alleged by the petitioner that it is misconception on the part of the respondents not to have counted officiating allowance for the purpose of fixation. The petitioner further made a representation and that too was without any result, therefore, ultimately petitioner came to file this writ petition for his fixation and confirmation.

A return has been filed by the respondents and the respondents has taken the position that the petitioner is not entitled to confirmation from 1.6.1979 and they have further taken the position that it was decided that the confirmation will not be given from retrospective effect as it results in recoveries of huge amount from the probationers who during the probation were paid the officiating allowance, therefore, the confirmation shall not be given retrospectively. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Rs. 60/- after confirmation of officiating pay and nor he is entitled to the benefit for the purpose of fixation.

Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner''s period of probation of six months expired on 1.6.1979, therefore, he is entitled to his confirmation from 1.64979 and his salary should have been fixed up first in the old pay-scale rules and thereafter his salary should have been fixed in terms of the regulations of 1979.

Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of the decision arrived at between the Union and the Management that no retrospective confirmation will be given to the probationers as it results in recovery of huge sum of money, therefore, petitioner was not confirmed from the retrospective date. Learned Counsel submitted that the confirmation should be deemed to be effective from the date of the order of the confirmation and it cannot be treated to be retrospective. Without going into the question that whether the retrospective confirmation is correct or not even on the submission of Mr. Mridul that the confirmation should be from the date order is issued then too the petitioner is entitled to confirmation from the date order was issued i.e. 22.6.1979 (Anx. 2) in that they have confirmed the petitioner from 1.7.1979. Even on the basis of the construction put by Mr. Mridul this order (Anx. 2) cannot be sustained because in that case also confirmation of the incumbent will have to be treated from the date of the order i.e. 22.6.1979. Therefore, in any case the order Anx. 2 by which the confirmation has been given from 1.7.1979 cannot be sustained. If the confirmation of the petitioner is to be treated from the date of the order i.e. 22.6.1979 then too also petitioner is to be first fixed in the old pay-scale rules and then his salary has to be fixed in the new pay-scale rules which came into force with effect from 1.7.1979.

Therefore, construing the matter in either way it is directed that Anx. 2 dated 22.6.1979 is treated to be confirmation order of the petitioner from the date of the issue i.e. 22.6.1979 and the petitioner should be fixed in the regulations of 1979 which came into force from 1.7.1979.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the respondent No. 3 was promoted as an Officer Gr. I in 1989 but the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion. The respondents has submitted in reply that in fact the candidature of the petitioner was also considered but he was not found suitable for promotion in view of the recommendation of the then Chief Manager Zonal Office, Bhopal who had the administrative control over all officers working in the State of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The recommendation of the Chief Manager were communicated to the central officer and while deciding the promotion in terms of the letter dt. 9.5.80 (Anx. R/9).

Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the reply of the respondents shows that the case of the petitioner was not considered. As against this Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the reply is very clear and it has been clearly mentioned that the case of the petitioner was considered. I have considered the reply filed by the respondents. In page 16 it has been clearly mentioned:

It is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that while promoting the non-petitioner No. 3, the candidature of the petitioner was not taken into consideration.

Therefore, in view of this categorically assertion I cannot infer that the case of the petitioner was not considered. The document Anx. R/8 and Anx. R/9 have been placed on record. In Anx. R/8 the Chief Manager has recommended the case of V.P. Jain and M.P. Bhatnagar and they have been selected and in Anx. R/9 he has not recommended the candidature of some of the officers including the petitioner and he has clearly mentioned in his recommendation that:

We may further mention that the past record and the performance of the above named at their present respective branches appear to be satisfactory but, however, it is too early to assess whether they have the required initiative, if given charge of such branches on their elevation to Gr. I. We may, therefore, decide their cases after a year or so, as to have sufficient time gap to study their performance keenly. As such, we are of the opinion that at this stage we shall not be doing justice if their cases are recommended for elevation to Gr. l.

Therefore, in face of this material it is not correct to say that the case of the petitioner was not considered. Since he was not found to be suitable for the post specially in view of the recommendation of the Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Bhopal in Rajasthan Region, therefore, he was not promoted. Thus the contention of Mr. Singhvi does not appear to be well founded.

In the result, I allow the writ petition in part and direct that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed from the date of the letter of confirmation old pay-scale rules and thereafter in the new regulations which has came into force with effect from 1.7.1979. This should be done within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.