Kashmiri Lal etc. etc. Vs. State Bank of Patiala
EmailAppeal: Civil appeal No. 566 of 1983.
WITH
W.P.Nos. 13067-68/83.
WITH
W.P.Nos. 13067-68/83.
Petitioner: Kashmiri Lal etc. etc.
Respondent: State Bank of Patiala
Apeal: Civil appeal No. 566 of 1983.
WITH
W.P.Nos. 13067-68/83.
WITH
W.P.Nos. 13067-68/83.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & S. RANGANATHAN,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 09, 1988
Head Note:
BANKING SERVICE:
State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1979; section 63 – Service Regulations, 1979 – Scheme for rationalising the services – Scheme did not provide for promotion – If required to carryout appropriate fitment – Respondent bank proceeded under a misconception that the fitment contemplated by way of rationalisation was one of promotion – ~4~ bank directed to give benefit of fitment by 31-3-1988.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
2. The appellant is an officer of the State Bank of Patiala which is a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India. The respondent-Bank framed a set of Service Regulations in 1979 under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1979 with a view to rationalising the services w.e.f. 1.10.1979. Implementation of the scheme by the respondent-Bank under the Regulation proceeded under a misconception that the fitment contemplated by way of rationalisation was one of promotion. When the matter was originally heard, we had pointed out to counsel for the respondent- Bank that the scheme did not provide for promotion and all that was necessary was to carry out the appropriate fitment without anything more. It is not disputed that on 1.10.1979 there were 178 posts to which fitment was to be made out of the 430 officers keeping the basis of seniority in view. It is equally not in dispute that the appellant came within the limit of 178 officers in the seniority list. As such he became entitled to the benefit of fitment right from 1.10.1979 and the respondent-Bank was obliged to give him that fitment.
3. In view of this finding the appeal has to be allowed and the appellant has to be declared entitled to the benefit of fitment with effect from 1.10.1979. This appeal is allowed with the direction that by 31.3.1988 the respondent-Bank shall make the appropriate order giving the benefit of fitment contemplated in the schedule under the Regulation. The appellant shall be entitled to costs of the proceedings both in the High Court as also here. Hearing fee of Rs. 2,000/- is granted.
4. In view of what has been stated above, no orders are necessary to be passed in the writ petitions.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
2. The appellant is an officer of the State Bank of Patiala which is a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India. The respondent-Bank framed a set of Service Regulations in 1979 under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1979 with a view to rationalising the services w.e.f. 1.10.1979. Implementation of the scheme by the respondent-Bank under the Regulation proceeded under a misconception that the fitment contemplated by way of rationalisation was one of promotion. When the matter was originally heard, we had pointed out to counsel for the respondent- Bank that the scheme did not provide for promotion and all that was necessary was to carry out the appropriate fitment without anything more. It is not disputed that on 1.10.1979 there were 178 posts to which fitment was to be made out of the 430 officers keeping the basis of seniority in view. It is equally not in dispute that the appellant came within the limit of 178 officers in the seniority list. As such he became entitled to the benefit of fitment right from 1.10.1979 and the respondent-Bank was obliged to give him that fitment.
3. In view of this finding the appeal has to be allowed and the appellant has to be declared entitled to the benefit of fitment with effect from 1.10.1979. This appeal is allowed with the direction that by 31.3.1988 the respondent-Bank shall make the appropriate order giving the benefit of fitment contemplated in the schedule under the Regulation. The appellant shall be entitled to costs of the proceedings both in the High Court as also here. Hearing fee of Rs. 2,000/- is granted.
4. In view of what has been stated above, no orders are necessary to be passed in the writ petitions.
