Anand Prakash Sinha v. State Bank of India — 1986 DIGILAW 8 (ALL)

JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - In all these writ petitions the petitioners are the officers in the State Bank of India (hereinafter to the referred to as 'the bank') and the dispute in these cases relates to the fixation of their seniority vis-a-vis the erstwhile Grade II Officers in the Bank. 2. The petitioners were all selected for appointment as probationary Officers/Trainee Officers/Grade I as a result of an examination held in the year 1978 on various dates and joined either on 30-10-1979 or 1-10-1979. On the date when the petitioners joined, the conditions of service of the Officers of the Bank were governed by the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') which came into force on 1-7-1985. These Rules were subsequently modified by the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as the order). The Rules reserved the right in the Central Board to change them from time to time as provided under clause 4(1) of the rules. The Order was, therefore, made by the Bank by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 as also clause 4(1) of the Rules. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that prior to the making of the order all Grade I officers were senior to every officer in Grade II. It has come in the affidavits filed on behalf of the Bank that the functions of the Officers Grade I was essentially managerial while those of the officers Grade II was essentially supervisory. 4. Under the Rules the recruitment of Officers Grade I was through three sources : - (i) By direct recruitment - The person so selected were called Probationary Officer. They were to be on probation and on successful completion of their training were absorbed by the Bank as Grade I Officers. (ii) Certain Staff/Cashiers were appointed as Trainee Officers Grade I as a result of a stringent test held considerably ahead of their eligibility of promotion in the normal course through the channel of Grade TI Officers. These Officers were pealed on probation and on successful completion of their probation, they were absorbed as Officer Grade I. If however, their work was not satisfactory during the period of probation, they were reverted to their original cadre. These Officers were pealed on probation and on successful completion of their probation, they were absorbed as Officer Grade I. If however, their work was not satisfactory during the period of probation, they were reverted to their original cadre. (iii) Grade II officers were also promoted to Officer Grade I as a result of a test and interview. 5. The Government of India had appointed a Committee to go into the service conditions of the Officers in the nationalised Banks other than the State Bank of India, known as Pillai Committee. It made certain recommendations regarding the service conditions and method of recruitment. 6. There was considerable agitation amongst the officers Grade II in the Bank asking for their being equal ed with the Officers Grade I. 7. The argument of the officers grade II was that with the expansion of banking activities a large number of the officers grade II were required to perform managerial duties which normally were performed by the officers grade I. The matter was discussed between the representatives of the Officers and the Management of the bank, and ultimately by the Order the Officer structure of the Bank was revised. The revised grades were as follows : - (a) Top Executive Grade. (b) Senior Management Grade. (c) Middle Management Grade. (d) Junior Management Grade Scale I. 8. The erstwhile officers grade I and officers grade II became the members of Junior Management Grade. The pay-scales were also raised. The Order was made on 19-12-1979 and by clause 1(2) of the Order it was provided that the order would come into force on 1-10-1979. 9. The historical setting and methodology of the Order was very lucidly explained in a memorandum prepared for the Executive Committee of the Central Board by the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel and Services) dated 3-12-1979 (a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of Sri Niamatullah, Personnel Manager, respondent No. 4 (in Civil Misc. Transferred Writ Petition No. 5900 of 1985). The relevant part of this memorandum is reproduced below : Memorandum for the Executive Committee of the Central Board Staff Supervising Merger of Officers Grade II and Grade I 10. Since the days of the Imperial Bank of India, there have been well recognised categories of staff in the bank. Transferred Writ Petition No. 5900 of 1985). The relevant part of this memorandum is reproduced below : Memorandum for the Executive Committee of the Central Board Staff Supervising Merger of Officers Grade II and Grade I 10. Since the days of the Imperial Bank of India, there have been well recognised categories of staff in the bank. Among the supervisory staff also, there are such categories as those performing predominantly supervisory functions, those performing managerial functions and senior executives. To the first category, later re designated as Officers Grade II. The origin of these two predominantly junior supervisory cadres within the officer ranks is found not so much in the nature of their duties and responsibilities but in the Bank's anxiety to pull them out of the workmen category to whom the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently of the Awards of Industrial Tribunals applied. 11. Although thus there was no change in their duties and responsibilities as predominantly in nature, as against managerial, the dictates of the successive expansion programmes necessitated for a long time, the posting of Sub-Accountants as Branch Managers or Accountants due to the chronic shortage of personnel in the managerial cadres. With the Bank further undertaking priority sector advances, viz. financing of small scale industries in the beginning and later direct lending to agriculturists since 1968-69, the need arose for appointing more and more field officers whose duties necessitated acquisition of new managerial skills like analysis of financial statements and ability to make credit decisions. These jobs were also very often performed by Sub-Accountants. On the cash department side as well, due to the establishment of branches maintaining currency chests and handling of Government business, the duties of the Head Cashiers as Heads of Cash Department also began to acquire more and more managerial content. There were also given independent receipting powers and some passing powers though the process was more gradual in their case than in the case of Sub-Accountants. For long time, responsibilities of Officers Grade II and Grade I and there was of the sub suitability between those two cadres for the purpose of posting as Accountants, Field Officers and Managers of small branches. 12. For long time, responsibilities of Officers Grade II and Grade I and there was of the sub suitability between those two cadres for the purpose of posting as Accountants, Field Officers and Managers of small branches. 12. The stress of explosion were felt in all quarters and more so by the officers' category and, with the increase in the number of supervising staff especially at the junior levels, another important development that took place in the meantime was the emergence of unionism among his class of employees as well. Apart from their campaign for improving the service conditions of the officer staff, one of their other major demands was the abolition of distinction between officers Grade I and Grade II. Having regard to the Bank's stand that the two Grade represent two different categories of officers namely, supervisory and managerial this demand was consistently resisted. The appointment of Officers Grade II to posts intended for officers Grade I was expected to be a short term phenomenon and this factor alone could not be taken as warrant in the abolition of officers Grade II. The problem of shortages, however, continued and the Federation continued a relentless was on the issue of merger of Grades. As the matter has assumed considerable emotional slant, we had the matter examined by the industrial relations consultant Prof. Nitish De., who after carefully considering the pros and chose of the demand, recommended that, while the two grades may continue, there should be adequate opportunities for promotions from Grade II to Grade I. Two channels for promotion were accordingly recommended viz. one after 2 years of service with a written test and interview and another with 7 years' services based on service record and interview. The Federation was obviously not happy about this but as there was considerable shortage of officers Grade & which was likely to continue for 3/4 years, there was no need for considering the number of vacancies and hence there was considerable scope for promotions. However, with the position undergoing a change by 1974, the number of vacancies had become relevant and the Federation once again activated their demand for merger. By this time, broad categorisation of posts was also decided upon and it was not considered advisable to accede to the demand having regard to the basic consideration of duties and responsibilities of the two categories of officers. By this time, broad categorisation of posts was also decided upon and it was not considered advisable to accede to the demand having regard to the basic consideration of duties and responsibilities of the two categories of officers. The Federation, therefore, started resorting to agitation methods in order to force the issue. It may be pertinent to add here that, while the demand was being continuously resided steps like liberal promotion, parallel scales up to 7 stages, etc. were taken which amounted to a gradual movement towards merger. Indeed, an impression was gained by officers that merger was accepted in principle and it was only a matter of time. 13. In the meantime another external factor had crept into the situation. The Government who had appointed a Committee for going into the question of standardisation of pay and allowances of officer staff in the nationalised Banks had accepted the report and declared it's intention to apply the recommendations to the State Bank Group as well. The Committee, which recommended 4 grades for officers, has compared the officers of banking industry as equivalent to Class I officers of the Government of India and had provided for only one scale at the Junior Management Level. He did not agree with this recommendation and the Chairman who was a member of the Bankers' Group appointed by the Government to study the modalities of implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations pointed out to the Government in a separate letter that there was a need for having two scales even at the Junior Management level based on the supervisory and managerial nature of the duties handless by the officers. The recommendations accepted by the Government did not, however, reflect any change to this effect. As the Pillai Committee Recommendations were to be applied in the State Bank Group with suitable modifications having regard to the special features in the Bank, we had the matter once again examined by a high level Committee headed by Shri R. P. Goyal, who was then Chief General Manager. The Committee felt that there was no case for merger but as the Pillai Committee Recommendations provided for only one scale at the Junior Management level it looked inevitable that the same position would apply to the State Bank, Group as well. We therefore, informed the Federation that the issue would get resolved with the implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations. We therefore, informed the Federation that the issue would get resolved with the implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations. 14. During discussion on the implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations in the Bank with modifications, the Federation raised a demand that all Officers Grade II should by taken to have been promoted before the appointed date. This was a strange demand and as merger was being achieved automatically with the implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations, there was no justification for promoting the officers Grade II to Grade I before implementation. The Federation, however, pointed out that the management had failed to set the logic of their demand which was long outstanding and had, in the meantime, exploited officers Grade II by asking them to shoulder the duties and responsibilities of officers Grade I they added that by persistently refusing to concede their just demand over the last 15 years, the Bank had deprived thousands of officers of their due seniority as they had to first enter the Grade II before being promoted to Grade T and in the proceeds lose seniority. Even the Pillai Committee, according to them, was not in favour of making any distinction between the supervisory and managerial duties within the officer cadre. Their demand, therefore, would be to notionally apply the merger retrospectively and give officers Grade IT their due seniority or alternatively to place all officers Grade 1 in Middle Management Grade scale II. On the contrary, by a passive act of fitment into one scale, the Bank was seeking to deprive the officers Grade II to the benefit of promotion as was obtaining in the existing scheme. This would add insult to injury. We have examined the matter in all its aspects. Although the points raised by the Federation are debatable, we have to reckon with the fact that the demand for merger has been a long standing issue and a cause for unrest among officers over the years. Indeed it has become an emotional issue for the officers and rather a prestige issue for the organisation who would be facing a criticism because of its inability to resolve the issue independent of the Pillai Committee Recommendations. Even if we had acceded to the demand in, say, 1976. Indeed it has become an emotional issue for the officers and rather a prestige issue for the organisation who would be facing a criticism because of its inability to resolve the issue independent of the Pillai Committee Recommendations. Even if we had acceded to the demand in, say, 1976. When the Pillai Committee Recommendations were made public and provided for only one scale at the Junior Management level, this would have made considerable difference in the seniority profile of the existing officers. A large number of existing officers Grade II would have also been eligible for certain other benefits applicable to officers Grade I viz. acting allowance, housing accommodation, etc. Having regard to the number of officers in Grade I (about 15,000) and the projected requirements of officers in the Middle Management Grade, it would also not be possible to accept the Federation's alternate suggestion that all officers Grade I should be placed in Scale II. 15. Taking into account all the aforesaid factors and the fact that, with the merger of grades as a result of the Pillai Committee Recommendations it would give the Bank an opportunity to choose suitable officers for different jobs at the junior levels (Its hands would not be tied by having to make postings only from among officers Grade I). We have, as a part of a package for implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations, agreed that only for the purpose of fitment and protection of existing emoluments under the Pillai Committee Recommendations, the basic pay of an officer Grade II should be reckoned as equivalent to what he would have drawn had he been promoted immediately before the implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations. The merit of this proposal is that although all officers Grade II and majority of officers Grade I will be grouped in the junior management grade, officers Grade II will be junior to the existing officers Grade I and there will be no difficulty in drawing up seniority lists. If alternatively, even a notional merger before implementation was accepted, there was a possibility of a controversial position developing with regard to seniority as the claim would have been to determine seniority in junior management cadre on the basis of the total length of service as an officer. We, therefore, recommend that the proposal made above for the fitment of officers Grade I be approved. 16. We, therefore, recommend that the proposal made above for the fitment of officers Grade I be approved. 16. With the existing Rule that officers Grade I will draw on confirmation a minimum basic pay of Rs. 620/- in the scale applicable to officers Grade I similar benefit will need to be given to the existing Trainee Officers and Probationary Officers in order to avoid inter see anomalies, unless they have already received an additional increment in terms of the rules before the appointed date. We recommend accordingly. The seniority was dealt with in clause 18 of the Order. Sub-clause (5) of clause 18 provides that: "Nothing herein contained shall affect the seniority among themselves of the existing officers". Thus, inter see seniority of all officers both Grade I and Grade II was maintained. In other words, all officers Grade I who were absorbed in Junior Management Grade was senior to the erstwhile Grade II Officers who were also absorbed in Junior Management Grade, Scale I. 17. The difficulty has only arisen in respect of the frication of the seniority of Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers vis-a-vis the erstwhile officer Grade II. In the normal course, if the Order had not come into being, the Trainee Officers and Probationary Officers on successful completion of their probation and on their being appointed as officers Grade I would have become senior to all existing officers Grade II. 18. The case of the petitioners is that they are by virtue of clause 18(5) of the Order, entitled to be treated as senior to the erstwhile officers Grade II. 19. The stand of the Bank is that the Order defines 'existing Officers' 'pincer', 'Probationary Officer' and 'Trainee Officer' and the petitioners not being existing officers of the Bank on 1-10-1979 cannot be senior to the erstwhile officers Grade II who became, by virtue of the Order, the Officers in the Junior Management Grade on 1-10-1979. 20. 19. The stand of the Bank is that the Order defines 'existing Officers' 'pincer', 'Probationary Officer' and 'Trainee Officer' and the petitioners not being existing officers of the Bank on 1-10-1979 cannot be senior to the erstwhile officers Grade II who became, by virtue of the Order, the Officers in the Junior Management Grade on 1-10-1979. 20. It is here, in order to properly appreciate the arguments of the parties, necessary to reproduce the definitions contained in clause 3 of the Order in so far as they are relevant : "(h) 'Existing Officers' means all officers in the service of the Bank immediately prior to the appointed date and to whom any of the following sets of Rules as amended or as deemed to have been amended by appropriate resolutions of the Central Board or the Executive Committee are applicable, namely : - (i) Rules governing the services of Officers in the Imperial Bank of India ; (ii) Rules governing the service of Assistants in the Imperial Bank of India ; and (iii) State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules ; (k) 'Officer' means a person fitted into or appointed to or promoted to any of the grades specified in paragraph 4 including an existing officer and shall also include any specialists or technical persons so fitted or promoted or appointed and any other employee to whom any of the provisions of this order has been made applicable under paragraph 2 ; (m) 'Probationary Officer' means an officer appointed as such and fitted in the Junior Management Grade ; (n) 'Trainee Officer' means a person appointed as such from the staff of the Bank and fitted in the Junior Management Grade. 21. Sri S. P. Gupta on behalf of the petitioners was contended that the definition of 'existing officer' is an illustrative definition and does not exclude other categories of officers like Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers. He submits that factually the petitioners being the Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers were Officers of the Bank on 19-12-1979 when the order was made and must be held to be 'existing Officers' of the Bank. He submits that factually the petitioners being the Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers were Officers of the Bank on 19-12-1979 when the order was made and must be held to be 'existing Officers' of the Bank. In this connection it is necessary to refer to the definition clause of the Rules and in particular to the definition of 'Officer Grade I' in clause 3 (m) of the Rules which runs as follows : "3 (m) 'Officer Grade I' means a person appointed substantively to the Officers Grade I and includes an officer Grade I on probation." In term of the definition clause, referred to above, Sri S. P. Gupta is correct when he submits that even the Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers would be Officers Grade I under the Rules. His submission that such Probation any Officers were also 'existing Officers within the meaning of the Order, will have to be examined separately. 22. As mentioned earlier, the Order was issued on 19-12-1979 and in clause 1(2) it is provided that "This Order shall come into force on the 1st day of October, 1979." Under clause 2(1) of the Order it is provided that - "This order shall apply to the existing officers of the Bank and to the officers of the Bank who are appointed or promoted to any of the grades mentioned in paragraph 4 and to such other employees of the Bank to whom it may be made applicable by the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the competent authority to the extent and subject to such condition as it may decide." 23. Then follows the definition clause which like other definition clauses provides that the words defined in the clause will have the meaning assigned to it, unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context. In other words, if the Court finds that a meaning other than the defined meaning has to be given to a particular word, it is open to the Court to define that meaning. The definition of phrase 'existing officers' contained in clause 3(h) of the Order has already been reproduced. Then follows Chapter III of the Order which deals with the grades and categorisation of posts. The definition of phrase 'existing officers' contained in clause 3(h) of the Order has already been reproduced. Then follows Chapter III of the Order which deals with the grades and categorisation of posts. The grades, as mentioned earlier, are Top Executive Grade, Senior Management Grade, Middle Management Grade and Junior Management Grade Scale II the follows Chapter III which deals with the placement and fitment of existing officers in the new grades and scales of pay. Clauses 7 and 8 of the Order which are relevant, are reproduced below : "7. Placement of existing officers on the appointed date in corresponding grades and scales. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6, existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in column 1 of the table given in Schedule 1 to this Order shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grade and scale specified the re against in column 2 of the said Schedule : Provided that any difficulties or anomalies arising out of the above placement shall be referred to a committed of such persons as the Chairman of the Bank may appoint and the decision of that committed in this regard shall be final." 24. Fitment in the new scales of pay : (1) Every existing officer placed in any of the new grades and scales of pay in accordance with paragraph 7, shall be fitted at such stage in the new scale of pay corresponding to the existing grade and scale as specified in Schedule II to this Order. (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), on being so fitted in the new scale of pay, such officer shall be eligible to draw the next increment, if any, in such new scale on the first day of the month in which he would have been eligible to draw increment in terms of the provisions in this behalf prior to the appointed date. (3) Where two or more officers having different seniority in the scale of pay immediately before the appointed date are fitted at the same stage in the new scale of pay, different months may be fixed for the eligibility of such officers for the next increment in the new scale of pay. (3) Where two or more officers having different seniority in the scale of pay immediately before the appointed date are fitted at the same stage in the new scale of pay, different months may be fixed for the eligibility of such officers for the next increment in the new scale of pay. (4) The mere fact that on the appointed date an officer happens to be posted in a post categorised as that of a grade or scale higher than the one in which he is placed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7 will not by itself entitle that officer to any higher placement or fitment." 25. Under clause 7 of the Order all existing officers serving in the grades and scales of pay mentioned in column 1 of the table given in Schedule I to the Order shall be placed on the appointed date in the grade and scale specified in column 2 of the said Schedule. Under clause 8 of the Order every Officer placed in the new grade and scale has to be fitted at such stage in the new scale of pay corresponding to the existing grade and scale as specified in Schedule II to the Order. The net effect of the two Clauses is that the placement of the Officers as on the appointed date has to be done under clause 7 and under clause 8 their pay is determined. 26. The contention on behalf of the Bank is that the Order had come into force on 1-10-1979 by virtue of clause 1(2) of the Order and as the petitioners were not the existing officers having joined either on 30-10-1979 or 31-10-1979, they could not be placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I on 1-10-1979 when the Order came into force. The submission is that the petitioners having been appointed in the interregnum between 1-10-1979 and 19-12-1979 when the Order was issued, they would be deemed to have been appointed under the Order either on 30-10-1979 or 31-10-1979 and as such they would be junior to all the Grade IT Officers who were placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I with effect from 19-12-1979. 27. 27. The reply on behalf of the petitioners is that Chapter IV of the Order which deals with the appointments, probation, confirmation, promotion, seniority, retirements, and terminations contemplates in clause 14 that the appointments have to be made after the date of making of the Order, namely 19-12-1979. It is pointed out that the petitioners were appointed under the Rules and it is not the case of the respondents that any appointment of the petitioners was made under clause 14(1) of the Order which deals with the appointments and is to be found in Chapter IV of the Order. The petitioners were factually appointed under the Rules and it is not the case of the Bank that there was any re-appointment of the petitioners. Therefore, Chapter IV of the Order will not apply to the petitioners. 28. If Chapter IV of the Order does not apply to the petitioners, it has to be seen as to how they were continued in the services of the Bank. The petitioners continued in the service of the Bank by virtue of their being placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I under clause 7 of the Order. The Bank has admitted that the petitioners were given the financial benefits which accrued to them by their placement under clause 7 of the Order as Officers of the Bank because of the effect of clause 8 of the Order with effect from the date on which the order came into force, namely 1-10-1979. 29. Sri S. N. Verma argues that all the erstwhile Officers Grade II have become officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale I from 1-10-1979 and as such they were senior to the petitioners who came into service either on 30-10-1979 or 31-10-1979. From the note of the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel and Services) of the Bank dated 3-12-1979 which was submitted immediately before the making of the order it is clear that the demand of the Federation which was that all the Officers Grade II should be taken to have been promoted before the appointed date was rejected. The scheme of the order shows that the report was acted upon and the demand was not acceded. The scheme of the order shows that the report was acted upon and the demand was not acceded. It was then said in the report that: "We have, as apart of a package for implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations, agreed that only for the purpose of fitment and protection of existing emoluments under the Pillai Committee Recommendations the basic pay of an Officer II should be reckoned as equivalent to what he would have drawn had be been promoted immediately before the implementation of the Pillai Committee Recommendations. The merit of this proposal is that although all officers Grade II and majority of officers Grade I will be grouped in the Junior Management Grade, officers Grade II will be junior to the existing officers Grade I and there will be no difficulty in drawing up seniority lists." 30. It will be seen that the recommendations in the report was that the fitment was for the purpose of protecting the existing emoluments under the Pillai Committee Recommendations. The Older did not make all the erstwhile officers Grade II the Officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale with effect from 1-10-1979 The argument of Sri S. N. Verma for the Bank that the erstwhile Officers Grade II have become Officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale I as from 1-10-1979 and as such were senior to the petitioners, cannot be accepted. The petitioners were also given the benefits of extra emoluments as from 1-10-1979 because of their placement as Officers under clause 7 of the Order. 31. We have seen that the petitioners could not be come the Officers of the Bank unless they were placed as existing Officers within clause 7 of the Order. The phrase 'existing Officers,' therefore, has to be read as including the Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers otherwise a repugnancy between the definition clause and clauses 7 and 8 of the Order will arise. 32. It has been strongly emphasised on behalf of the Bank that the cadre of Officers Grade I ceased to exist with effect from 1-10-1979 and the consequence was that with effect from the date when the petitioners joined they were automatically placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I by virtue of clause 14(1) read with clauses 3(m),(o) and (k) of the Order. The word 'appointment' has been defined in Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol. 1. The word 'appointment' has been defined in Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol. 1. 'Appointment' means : " ......action of nominating to or placing in an officer in the office itself." 33. It is submitted here that the petitioners were appointed/placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I with effect from either on 30-10-1979 or 31-10.1979 and the Order is clearly applicable on to them in terms of clause 2 of the said Order and as such the petitioners cannot say that apart from clause 7 there is no other provision under which they could have been placed as Officers in the Junior Management Grade Scale I. This argument cannot be accepted because, as mentioned earlier, the appointments referred to in clause 14 are appointments made to the service of the Bank in the Officers Grade after the Order was made and not from the date when it was notionally made. The notional date of the coming into force of the Order namely 1-10-1979, is only to protect the emoluments of the officers and nothing else. The petitioners were not factually appointed under the Order but were appointed under the Rules. The argument on behalf of the Bank cannot be accepted. 34. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank that the petitions should be rejected for non-joinder of parties inasmuch as all the erstwhile Officers Grade II whose number is about 14,000 have not been made parties to the petitions. It is stated that even the Federation which spongers the demand of these Officers has not been impleaded and as such no relief should be given as if the writ petition is allowed, the said officers will be very adversely affected. 35. The Bank has admittedly not yet issued any seniority list. During the course of arguments Sri S. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has only argued on the interpretation of the Order. He had in effect asked for a declaration from this Court as to the true meaning and import of the Order in regard to the determination of seniority of erstwhile Trainee Officers and Probationary Officers in Grade I who were appointed on 30/31-10-1979. Normally a declaratory relief is not granted by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Normally a declaratory relief is not granted by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the fact that the Bank has taken a positive stand that the petitioners are junior to the erstwhile Officers Grade II and the petitions affect a large number of Officers both situated like the petitioners whose number is over 900 and about 14,000 erstwhile Officers Grade II, the petitioners have been heard on merits Since only a view has been expressed by the Bank as to the interpretation of the Order but no action has been taken by the Bank consequent on its holding a particular view with regard to the seniority. There can be no taking away of any right as such of the erstwhile Officers Grade II who have been absorbed in Junior Management Grade Scale I. In the circumstances the argument that the petitions should be dismissed on the ground of the non-joinder of the necessary parties is misconceived and is rejected. 36. Some special features in individual cases have now to be mentioned. In Madras petition (Civil Misc. Transferred Writ Petition No. 3899 of 1985) in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition it was stated as follows : "7. I state that the 5th respondent joined the services of the 1st respondent Bank as a Cashier on 1-8-1973, while (T.K. Ranganatha) had joined the services as Cashier on 26-3-1973 and as such is junior to me even in the Cashier Cadre. Even though the 6th respondent was a Graduate (B.Sc.) like me he had not passed the CA1IB Part 1 Examination which is the prescribed qualification for eligibility to appear for the All India Competitive Test for appointment as Trainee Officer in O. G. I. Scale. Therefore, the 6th Respondent and many others like him could not appear for the All India Competitive Test for Trainee Officers held on 22-10-1978 along with the petitioners herein. The petitioners passed the said test and were duly promoted as Trainee Officers on 31-10-1979. 8. However the 6th Respondent and many others like him subsequently appeared for the Circle level Officers in O. G. I. Scale. The petitioners passed the said test and were duly promoted as Trainee Officers on 31-10-1979. 8. However the 6th Respondent and many others like him subsequently appeared for the Circle level Officers in O. G. I. Scale. No option was also given to us which the 1st and 2nd Respondents ought to have given us in view of the retrospective operation of the impugned order." These facts are not disputed in the counter affidavit but it was submitted that the respondent was willing to give an option to those employees who opted for their appointment as Officers Grade II if they so wish. It was added that - "It may however be mentioned that the options were not asked for since they had already been appointed to O. G. II Scale and in view of officers both Grade I and II have been re designated in a single grade of Junior Management Grade." 37. Thus no benefit was given to the petitioners in the Madras petition who had passed the examination for appointment as Trainee Officers Grade I. 38. In the Patna case (Civil Misc. Transferred Writ Petition No. 5900 of 1985) the petitioners have been successful in a test for recruitment as Officers Grade II and they worked as such. Thereafter they appeared for appointment in Officers Grade I. They were asked to join as Trainee Officers Grade I before 31-10-1979. They joined as Trainee Officers Grade I. 39. In the Patna case the Bank had withdrawn the appointment of the petitioners as Trainee Officers and asked them to revert to their original status as Officers Grade II. This was obviously done because it was thought that the petitioners would get higher seniority by being treated as Officers Grade II then they would get as Trainee Officers Grade I. This was also incorrect. The orders withdrawing the petitioners' appointment as a Trainee Officers cannot stand. 40. In the result, the writ petitions succeed in part and are allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to prepare the seniority list of its Officers in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this judgment. In Civil Misc. Transferred Writ Petition No. 5900 of 1985 the impugned orders dated 3-4-1980, 22-2-1980 and 10-1-1980 (Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively to that writ petition) are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to the costs.