State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs K. Kallappa Tukaram Rajeswar

B. S. Patil, J. - This appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.6830/2007 thereby directing appellant herein - State Bank of Hyderabad to grant notional promotion to the writ petitioner with effect from the date on which his junior Sajane Pandit was promoted on 01.12.2003 to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale - II with all consequential benefits.

Facts involved in the case are not in dispute. Writ petitioner/respondent herein joined service of the Bank as Clerk on 17.04.1978 claiming benefit of Reservation under Scheduled Tribe by producing caste certificate disclosing that he belonged to Kadu Kuruba. He was eligible for promotion to next higher cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale-I. But, he was not given promotion as disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. He was charge-sheeted on allegation of producing false caste certificate. Hence, sealed cover procedure was adopted regarding his promotion.

The disciplinary proceedings were quashed in W.P.No.31805/1995 on 07.07.1997. It is relevant to notice at this stage that along with petitioner, several others were also proceeded against, including his junior Sajane Pandit based on the same allegation. The matter was considered by Caste Verification Committee as per direction issued by this Court and the Caste Verification Committee found that caste certificates produced by petitioner and others including Sajane Pandit were valid. Based on the order of Caste Verification Committee, the Bank dropped disciplinary proceedings against Sajane Pandit. As a result, he was able to participate in promotional process and was promoted to next higher cadre on 01.12.2003. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner, as urged by writ petitioner were dropped later. Subsequently, the Bank apparently by opening the sealed cover promoted the writ petitioner to Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 23.06.2005 with effect from 01.12.1996.

The writ petitioner claimed promotion to next higher grade of Middle Management Grade Scale-II contending that he was kept out of promotional process for no fault on his part on the alleged ground that disciplinary enquiry was pending against him. When his case was not considered, he filed W.P.No.22012/2005. By order dated 12.12. 2005 this Court held that petitioner was not responsible for the problem faced by him. This Court specifically stated at paragraph 8 of the said order that had the Bank acted on the basis of the letter written by the District Social Welfare Officer on 01.08.2013 informing that caste certificate produced by petitioner was valid, writ petitioner would not have been constrained to approach this Court. The Bank had chosen to close disciplinary enquiry only on 06.02.2004 and had decided to open the sealed cover thereafter resulting in his promotion to the next higher cadre only on 23.06.2005, hence there occurred delay of nearly two years. In that background, this Court issued direction to the Bank to permit the writ petitioner to participate in promotional process to the next higher cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II.

Petitioner has, thereafter passed required test and has been promoted with effect from 01.12.2005. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition contending inter alia that his junior Sajane Pandit was promoted with effect from 01.12.2003; Petitioner was similarly placed in all respects and had also passed prescribed examinations, hence he was entitled for fixation of notional date of his promotion and for consequential relief of seniority etc. considering the date of promotion of his junior Sajane Pandit.

Before the learned Single Judge, the Bank took up a contention that case of the writ petitioner could not be equated with that of Sajane Pandit because Sajane Pandit worked as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 28.10.1999 whereas writ petitioner was promoted as Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 23.06.2005 and worked in the cadre only thereafter. The Bank contended that as writ petitioner had not actually worked in the promoted cadre, as was done by Pandit he was not entitled for further promotion on par with his junior.

Learned single Judge has repelled this contention holding that because of disciplinary proceedings initiated against writ petitioner, sealed cover procedure was adopted and once disciplinary proceedings were dropped and sealed cover was opened, he was rightly given promotion with effect from a retrospective date and as a consequence thereof he would be entitled for further promotion on par with his junior, provided he passed the required examinations prescribed.

In the instant case, even to participate in promotional process for next higher cadre, writ petitioner was constrained to approach this Court earlier and by virtue of the order passed in W.P.No.22012/2005 he participated in the promotional process for the next higher cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II and emerged successful. Therefore he was entitled for notional promotion and fixation of seniority and other consequential benefits on par with his junior Sajane Pandit. The said relief granted to writ petitioner cannot be found fault with.

Learned counsel Sri. Manvendra Reddy appearing for the Bank contends that writ petitioner ought to have sought relief regarding his promotion with effect from the date on which h is junior was promoted while filing Writ Petition No.22012/2005. He urges that ''as said relief was neither sought nor granted in the previous writ petition, he was estopped from seeking the same by filing another writ petition.

We do not find any substance in this contention because when the present respondent filed earlier writ petition, he had mainly sought for a direction to the Bank to permit him to participate in process of promotion for the cadre of Middle Management Grade Scale-II. He was required to appear for certain tests and pass the same. By virtue of the order passed by this Court, he was permitted to appear for the test. After he emerged successful in the prescribed tests, he has approached this Court seeking fixation of his date of promotion notionally with effect from the date his junior was promoted.

It has to be stated here that while disciplinary proceedings against Sajane Pandit was dropped on 08.04.1999, the same were dropped as regards the petitioner almost four years later i.e., on 06.02.2004. It is because of this action of the Bank, writ petitioner was deprived of opportunity to participate in the process of promotion to next higher cadre by appearing for the required tests.

It has to be made clear at this stage that but for the disciplinary proceedings and but for the Bank delaying closure of disciplinary proceedings, writ petitioner would have appeared for the tests and got himself qualified for promotion along with his junior Sri. Pandit. While the junior of writ petitioner was permitted to participate in the process of promotion, case of writ petitioner was delayed for no fault on his part. There was no justification for the Bank to open the sealed cover insofar as writ petitioner is concerned belatedly while choosing to open the same promptly immediately after dropping of disciplinary proceedings in sofaras the junior of writ petitioner was concerned. Therefore, there was no lapse on the part of writ petitioner. The delay was attributable to the action of the Bank and therefore if writ petitioner is not permitted to have benefit of notional promotion with effect from the date his junior was promoted, it will result in discriminatory, unfair and unequal treatment.

Hence, the order passed by learned single Judge is right and justified. No case is made out for interference. Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.3/2015 is dismissed as it does not survive.