Madhu Mati Sharma and Others vs Government of India and Others Punjab Gramin Bank (Regional Rural Bank) Vs Parmod Kumar and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—By way of this order, we shall dispose of two appeals bearing LPA Nos. 1882 and 2171 of 2011 as both are inter-connected. However, the facts are being extracted from LPA No. 1882 of 2011. In brief, validity of a circular dated 12.09.2000 was challenged by the Junior Clerks-cum-Cashiers working in the Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank whereby 11 promotional vacancies from Clerical Cadre to Officer Cadre (JMG Scale-I) were sought to be filled up on the basis of Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "1988 Rules") and a prayer was made to fill up these posts as per the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the "1998 Rules").

The case set up by the writ petitioners was that in terms of 1988 Rules, for the promotion to the post of Filed Supervisors to the extent of 50%, the feeder cadre was the confirmed Senior and Junior Clerk-cum-Typist or Stenographer or Steno-Typist on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and for the purpose of further promotion to the post of officer cadre, the feeder cadre was confirmed Supervisors and the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. The case of the writ petitioners was that the Government of India had abolished the intermediary posts i.e. Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers, as well as the Field Supervisors w.e.f. 01.09.1987 and no promotion could have been effected from the Clerical cadre to the Officer cadre. However, vide notification dated 29.07.1998, a new policy in supersession of the earlier 1988 Rules was brought regarding appointment and promotion, according to which the promotion to the post of Officer was on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and five years'' performance appraisal. The test was conducted as per the 1998 Rules in which the writ petitioners and the private respondents had appeared but except private respondent No. 7 therein, no-one could clear the written test, whereas all the writ petitioners passed the same but instead of promoting the writ petitioners, the respondent No. 4 issued a Circular dated 12.09.2000 for filling up the promotional vacancies from Clerical Cadre under the old promotion policy on the ground that the vacancies had occurred while the old policy was operative.

The learned Single Judge, on the basis of pleadings, framed 3 questions, namely, (i) whether the eleven vacancies arose prior to the amendment of Rules 1988 or thereafter; (ii) whether the vacancies were required to be filled under the 1988 Rules or 1998 Rules; and (iii) whether the private respondents were eligible under the 1988 Rules or not. On appraisal, it was concluded that there is nothing on record to specify that the vacancies arose prior to 1997 and even if it is presumed, for the sake of arguments, that the said vacancies arose prior to coming into force of new 1998 Rules, the same cannot be filled up under the old 1988 Rules because as per 1988 Rules, promotion to the post from Clerks to Officers was from amongst confirmed Filed Supervisors on the principal of seniority-cum-merit and the post of Field Supervisors and Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers have been abolished w.e.f. 01.09.1987 and no Field Supervisor was available at that time when the vacancies arose nor till the time when these vacancies were required to be filled up in the year 2000. As such, there was no feeder post or cadre left from which the promotion could be made as per 1988 Rules. It was, thus, held that since private respondents No. 5 to 15 in the writ petition were never promoted as Filed Supervisors, the question of filling up of eleven vacancies under the 1988 Rules did not arise. It was, thus, held that the department had no choice but to fill up the vacancies as per 1998 Rules in which written test was duly held in which the writ petitioners as well as the private respondents had also appeared knowing fully well that their promotion was under the 1998 Rules and out of the private respondents, only respondent No. 7 could have managed to succeed. In this background, the order of promotion of respondent Nos. 5 to 15 was set aside and the official respondents were directed to consider the promotion of the writ petitioners from Clerical Cadre to Officer Cadre with effect from the date the writ petitioners became eligible i.e. from the date of clearing the written test held on 22.10.2000 in terms of notification dated 29.07.1998.

The common case of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that there was no eligible candidate for promotion under 1988 Rules because the post of Senior Clerks and Field Supervisors had been abolished w.e.f. 01.09.1987, whereas these posts were re-designated as Clerks and Scale-I officers respectively and the only persons remained to be promoted were Clerks who are writ petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 15 as per 1988 Rules, for which the criteria is seniority-cum-merit. Reason for observing about the abolition of the feeder posts of Senior Clerks and Field Supervisors was that there was no mention in the written statement regarding re-designation of the post of Senior Clerks and Field Supervisors. In the grounds of appeal filed by the Bank, averment made in para 15 of the written statement has been further elaborated to the following effect:--

The employees of Regional Rural Banks of India filed a writ petition No. 7149 and 7150 of 1982 and a CWP No. 132 of 1984 in the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India for seeking parity in the terms of employment with employees of the nationalized banks. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Central Govt. constituted a National Industrial Tribunal to whom the matter was entrusted for adjudication. The said National Industrial Tribunal made an award dated 30.04.1990. the relevant extracts of the award which is relevant for the disposal of the dispute in the present LPA is sought to be filed herewith as Annexure R-6. The National Industrial Tribunal held that the officers and employees of Regional Rural banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and employees of sponsor banks in the matter of pay scale allowances and other benefits. Thereafter, the Central Govt. formed a Equation Committee, which made its recommendations regarding the placing of the employees of Regional Rural banks vis-�-vis the employees of sponsor banks. The said Equation Committee made its findings and on the basis of the report of the Equation Committee, the Central Govt. issued instructions in terms of proviso-I of Section 17 of The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 for implementing the national Industrial Tribunal Award and the recommendations of the Equation Committee. In the said recommendation, the post of Sr. Clerk-cum-Cashier and Field Supervisors were abolished and the existing Sr. Clerks-cum-Cashier were re-designated as clerical cadre employees to be placed above the Jr. clerks-cum-cashiers in the common seniority list of clerks, and field supervisors were redesignated as officers of Jr. Management Scale-I. A copy of the relevant extracts of the letter dated 22.02.1991 which is sought to be filed as Annexure R-7.

It is further submitted that the written test given by the writ petitioners does not give any right of promotion to them as the written test is provided in 1998 Rules, whereas promotion was to take place as per 1988 Rules in which there is no provision of written test and the criteria is only seniority-cum-merit. It is submitted that the posts became available in 1997 on account of promotion of Scale-I officers to Scale-II officers. It is further submitted that though promotion process was initiated on 12.09.2000 but it was regarding the vacancies which had arisen and identified before coming into force of the 1998 Rules and as per the settled law, old vacancies are to be filled up according to the old Rules. It is further submitted that the letter dated 25.05.2000 available on record has not been properly appreciated because the said letter clearly lays down that 11 vacancies for promotion to Scale-I officers have arisen in 1997 on account of promotion of Scale-I officers to Scale-II officer and that two vacancies have arisen on account of the natural wastage. Thus, these vacancies were available before coming into force of 1998 Rules and were to be filled up according to the old 1988 Rules. It is further submitted that since the feeder posts were not abolished and were merged in view of NIT Award dated 03.04.1990 and the recommendations made by the Equation Committee, the Clerks became entitled to be promoted to the cadres of officers.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the Government had abolished the intermediary posts i.e. Senior Clerk-cum-Cashiers as well as the Field Supervisors w.e.f. 01.09.1987, which were the feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Officer Scale I, therefore, no promotion could have been effected from Clerical cadre to the Officer cadre. In terms of the 1998 Rules, the promotion to the post of Officer Scale I was on the basis of written test, interview and five years'' performance appraisal. It is also submitted that the circular was issued for filling up the promotional vacancies for which test was accordingly held in which all the writ petitioners have been successful and are entitled to be considered for promotion.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There are some admitted facts, namely, the writ petitioners as well as the private respondents were Junior Clerk-cum-Cashiers working in the Bank and the 1988 Rules were framed whereby the promotion to the post of Filed Supervisors and further to the post of Officers was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The confirmed Senior and Junior Clerk-cum-Typist or Stenographer or Steno-Typist was the feeder cadre for the promotion to the post of Field Supervisors, whereas the confirmed Field Supervisors was the feeder cadre for promotion to the Scale-I officer. Thereafter, vide notification dated 29.07.1998, a new policy in supersession of the earlier 1988 Rules, regarding appointment and promotion was issued in which for the purpose of promotion to the post of Officer Scale I, selection process was provided by way of written test, interview and five years'' performance appraisal in which the writ petitioners were successful and except private respondent No. 7 no-one amongst the private respondent could make it, but as the writ petitioners were not considered for promotion, they filed the writ petition which has been allowed.

Though the question involved is as to whether the vacancies in question became available before coming into force of the 1998 Rules and if they became available before 1997 there is no dispute that those had to be filled up under the 1988 Rules and whether the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier as well as of the Field Supervisors were abolished w.e.f. 01.09.1987 and as such 1988 Rules became ineffective insofar as the right of consideration for promotion of the private respondents is concerned?

It has been explained in the letter dated 25.05.2000 in which the Government instructed respondent No. 4 that 11 vacancies of officer scale I i.e. 50% of 20 promotion made from Scale I to Scale II + 50% of 2 due to natural wastage in RRB may be filled in as per old promotion Policy out of eligible clerks. Accordingly, it has been found that 9 vacancies of Scale I officer have arisen in 1997 on account of promotion of Scale I officer to Scale II officer and 2 vacancies had arisen on account of natural wastage. These vacancies became available before coming into force of the 1998 Rules and were required to be filled up in terms of the old 1988 Rules.

As regards abolition of posts of Senior Clerks-cum-Cashiers w.e.f. 01.09.1987 vide letter dated 08.04.1993 is concerned, it has been explained that the employees of Regional Rural Banks filed a writ petition No. 7149 and 7150 of 1982 and a CWP No. 132 of 1984 in the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India for seeking parity in the terms of employment with the employees of the nationalized banks. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the Central Govt. constituted a National Industrial Tribunal who gave an award on 30.04.1990 in which it was held that the officers and employees of the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and employees of the sponsored banks in the matter of pay scale, allowances and other benefits. Thereafter, the Central Government formed an Equation Committee, which made its recommendations regarding the placing of the employees of Regional Rural Banks vis-�-vis the employees of sponsored banks. The said Equation Committee gave its findings and on the basis of the report of the Equation Committee, the Central Govt. issued instructions in terms of Proviso-I of Section 17 of the Rural Banks Act, 1976 for implementing the NIT award and the recommendations of the Equation Committee. In the said recommendation, the post of Sr. Clerk-cum-Cashier and Field Supervisors were abolished and the existing Sr. Clerks-cum-Cashier were re-designated as Clerical cadre employees to be placed above the Jr. Clerks-cum-Cashiers in the common seniority list of Clerks, and Field Supervisors were re-designated as officers of Jr. Management Scale-I.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the vacancies had occurred prior to the enforcement of 1998 Rules and the posts of Senior Clerks-cum-Cashiers and Filed Officers have not been abolished but merged/re-designated, the 1988 Rules would apply for the purpose of filling up those posts by way of promotion in which the criteria is only seniority-cum-merit and the 1998 Rules would not apply where the criteria was written test, interview and 5 years'' performance appraisal. In view thereof, we allow both the appeals being found meritorious and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.