Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 50 (GAU)

Ranjit Banarjee v. State Bank of India

1998-02-27

A.K.PATNAIK

body1998
In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to promote him in the grade of MMGS I in the State Bank of India with effect from 1.8.96 with all consequential service benefits as have been given to his batch mates. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier in the State Bank of India in the year 1970. He took a written test and interview in the year 1977 for promotion to the post of Head Cashier and on being successful in the said written test and interview, he was promoted to the post of Head Cashier by memorandum No.13/727 dated 31.12.77. But the petitioner who was then working as Cashier in the Branch office of the State Bank of India at Maligaon was not realeased by the Branch Manager till 15.6.78. After his release, he joined as Head Cashier at Kailashashar Branch in the State of Tripura on 28.6.78. In July, 1989 he was transferred to the Bengal Circle and while he was working under the Bengal Circle in September, 1989 an interview was held in the North Eastern Circle for promotion to the posts of MMGS II with effect from 1.8.87; but the petitioner did not get any call letter for the said interview. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 8.3.90 to the Deputy Managing Director (P&S), Central Office, State Bank of India, Bombay. When no reply was received, the petitioner sent a reminder dated 22.11.90. He then received a letter dated 26.12.90 from the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office at Guwahati to the effect that his appeal would be dealt with by the Central Office through the Bengal Circle as it had been submitted when the petitioner had been posted in the Bengal Circle. The petitioner then made another representation dated 31.12.90 stating that his grievances directly related to North Eastern Circle. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 1.3.91 from the Personnel Office of the State Bank of India, Zonal Office at Guwahati intimating that his appeal with regard to promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1.8.87/1.8.88 had been rejected by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 1.3.91 from the Personnel Office of the State Bank of India, Zonal Office at Guwahati intimating that his appeal with regard to promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1.8.87/1.8.88 had been rejected by the appellate authority. Since ho reason for rejection of the appeal of the petitioner had been given in the said letter dated 1.3.91, the petitioner in his letter dated 25.5.91 to the Deputy Managing Director (P&S), State Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay, requested him to let the petitioner know the basis of rejection of his appeal. When no reply was received, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.1.92 to the Chairman. Grievance Committee, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Guwahati. Since the Grievance Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ petition bearing Civil Rule No.763 of 1992 for appropriate relief. By order dated 12.8.93 this Court disposed of the said civil rule with a direction that the representation of the petitioner be disposed of by the Grievance Committee within 15 days. On 20.12.93, the Grievance Committee held its meeting at Zonal Office at Guwahati and submitted its report dated 7.2.94 affirming the grievance of the petitioner. But when no action was taken by the respondents to redress the said grievances of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for appropriate relief. 3. At the hearing of this writ petition, Mr. RP Sharma, assisted by Mr. AK Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a perusal of the report of the Grievance Committee, would show that the grievances of the petitioner on 3 issues have been found to be genuine and in the circumstances this is a fit case in which, the respondents should be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of MMGS II of the State Bank of India with effect from 1.8.86 with all consequential service benefits. He pointed out that the petitioner has already been given promotion to MMGS II with effect from 1,8.89 and the Court has merely to direct the respondents to give effect to the said promotion with effect from 1.8.86 instead of 1.8.89. 4. Mr. He pointed out that the petitioner has already been given promotion to MMGS II with effect from 1,8.89 and the Court has merely to direct the respondents to give effect to the said promotion with effect from 1.8.86 instead of 1.8.89. 4. Mr. Satyen Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the averments in the counter-affidavit would show that the grievances of the petitioner were not genuine and that the delay in promotion to the petitioner to MMGS II with effect from 1.8.89 was on account of laches on the part of the petitioner himself. In this context, he pointed out that although the petitioner received the promotion order on 31.12.77 lie preferred not to be relieved from the post of Cashier at Maligaon Branch of the State Bank of India because of the fact that he was a resident of Maligaon area and did not want to be posted on promotion as Head Cashier at a place distant from Maligaon. The petitioner should have taken prompt steps to move the higher authorities or the Court for relieving him from the post of Cashier at Maligaon Branch and for posting him in the promoted post of Head Cashier soon after he received the promotion order dated 31.12.77. But no such action was taken by the petitioner and only after he was not promoted to the post of MMGS II that he moved this Court in earlier Civil Rule No.763 of 1992. Mr. Sarma cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of KV Rajalakshmiah Setty & another vs. State of Mysore & another, AIR 1967 SC 993 and in the case of PS Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Umil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 , in which the writ petitions filed after the delay of 13 and 14 years had been dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioners. He relied on the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Bora vs. Union of India & others, 1996 (I) GLT 67, to the effect that law helped the vigilant, and submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. Mr. He relied on the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Bora vs. Union of India & others, 1996 (I) GLT 67, to the effect that law helped the vigilant, and submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. Mr. Sarma also stated that the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents would show that the petitioner availed the written examinations for promotion to MMGS II effective from 1.8.87/1.8.88 in the Bengal Circle at Calcutta but was not successful and this material fact has been withheld in the writ petition. Citing the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MT Varghess vs. State of Assam & others, 1997 (II) GLT 318, to the effect that one who suppresses the material facts is not entitled to be heard. Mr. Sarma contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. On perusal of the report of the Grievance Committee, I find that under Issue No. 1, the first grievance of the petitioner was that he was not offered the opportunity to appear in the promotion test for Sub Accountant held in 1977 as per the Regional Office Circular Special Letter No.39 of 1977 and in the circumstances he had no other option but to appear in the promotion test for Head Cashier in 1977 in terms of the Regional Office Circular Special Letter No.40 of 1977. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated that option was called for from the petitioner to exercise his willingness to appear in the interview for promotion to Officers Grade II through two different channels, i.e., Sub Accountant and Head Cashier, and the circular instructions contained in the Regional Office Circular Special Letter No.39 of 1977 for promotion to the post of Officers Grade II (Sub Accountant) was shown to the petitioner by the Maligaon Branch and his acknowledgement to that effect was obtained on the body of the said Circular Special Letter as a token of his having seen the contents thereof. It is further stated that similar option was also called for from the petitioner for the written test for promotion to Officers Grade II (Head Cashier) in pursuance of the Regional Office Circular Special Letter No.40 of 1977 and the petitioner exercised his willingness by signing the duplicate copy of the Maligaon Branch Memorandum No. 13/200 dated 18.4.77. A xerox copy of thd said Branch memorandum dated 18.4.77 containing the initial of the petitioner has been annexed to the counter-affidavit. A reading of the said memorandum dated 18.4.77 shows that the petitioner was asked as to whether in the event of his being declared successful and selected, he would be prepared to accept the appointment as Officer Grade II (Head Cashier) and, if so, to return the duplicate copy of the letter signed by him in token thereof, and the petitioner appears to have signed the same and returned it to the Branch Manager. In case the petitioner wanted to opt for the other channel of promotion, i.e. Officer Grade II (Sub Accountant) instead of Officers Grade II (Head Cashier): the petitioner could have returned the duplicate copy of the memorandum dated 18.4.77 without signing the same and instead intimated in writing to the Branch Manager, Maligaon Branch of State Bank of India that he opted for Officer Grade II (Sub Accountant). Once the petitioner, however, signed the said office memorandum dated 18.4.77 in token of having accepted the option for promotion to Officer Grade U (Head Cashier), the petitioner cannot now take a stand at this belated stage that he was not given the opportunity to appear in the promotion test for promotion to Officers Grade II (Sub Accountant). 6. The second grievance of the petitioner as discussed in Issue No.2 in the report of the Grievance Committee was that although the petitioner was promoted as Head Cashier by order dated 31.12.77, the petitioner was released from Maligaon Branch where he was working, only in June, 1978 and joined as Head Cashier at Kailasahar in Tripura on 28.6.78 and as per the policy of the Bank the effective date of .promotion of the petitioner as Head Cashier became 28.6.78. Since 8 years' service in the Officers Grade II (Head Cashier) was required to be eligible for promotion to MMGSII, the petitioner became ineligible for promotion to the said post of MMGS II with effect from 1.8.86 whereas his batch mates were found to be eligible for promotion to the said posts of MMGS II with effect from 1.8.86 and were in fact promoted. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that the release of the petitioner from Maligaon Branch of the State Bank of India might have been delayed in view of the exigencies of service or it might be that the petitioner had not pressed for his early release due to the benefits that he was obtaining by staying at Guwahati and if the petitioner was aggrieved he could have brought this to the notice of the Management at the material time instead of waiting for long about 13 months to focus his grievance. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit of the respondents and the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner, it is difficult for this Court to know the exact reason as to why the petitioner was not relieved soon after the memorandum dated 31.12.77 to the effect that the petitioner had been found successful for promotion to the post of Officer Grade II (Head Cashier). But the policy of the Bank that was prevailing then was clear that so far as the promotion to the post of Officers Grade II (Head Cashier) was concerned, the same would be given effect to only from the date when the officer joined in the said promoted post of Head Cashier and not from the date of order of promotion and the petitioner who was presumed to have known this position should have moved the authorities for his immediate release from the post of Cashier at Maligaon Branch and for his posting as Head Cashier at Kailasahar, but no such written representation was filed by the petitioner before the authorities for his release from the post of Cashier at Maligaon Branch and for his posting as Head Cashier and it was only in the year 1992 when he was not promoted to the post of MMGS II that he moved this Court in a writ petition numbered as Civil Rule No.763 of 1992 making a grievance that his promotion to MMGS II was delayed on account of his late release from the post of Cashier at Maligaon Branch. Apart from such laches on the part of the petitioner, the fact remains that to be eligible for promotion to MMGS II with effect from 1.8.86, an officer should have been promoted to the Officers Grade II on or before 31.12.77. The petitioner's promotion to Officers Grade II (Head Cashier) was to take effect from 28.6.78 as per the policy of the Bank. He was therefore not eligible for being considered from promotion to MMGS II with effect from 1.8.86. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not direct relaxation of the said eligibility requirement for promotion to MMGS II and not direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to MMGS II with effect from 1.8.86 unless it comes to a definite finding that the petitioner has been arbitrarily deprived of such promotion, but the petitioner in the present case has not been able to make out any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents warranting any such direction from this Court. 7. 7. The last grievance of the petitioner as discussed under Issue No. 3 of the Grievance Committee report was that when the petitioner was transferred to Bengal Circle along with other officers in 1989, the petitioner was not called for interview in North Eastern Circle for promotion to MMGS II while other officers were called for interview in North Eastern Circle. In the counter-affidavit of the respondents, it has been explained that the petitioner was not called for the interview in North Eastern Circle for promotion to MMGS II with effect from 1.8.87/1.8.88 as he had already been called for interview for promotion to MMGS II effective from 1.8.87/1.8.88 in the Bengal Circle by Calcutta LHO, but he could not come out successful in the said interview for the said promotion. It has further been contended in the said counter affidavit that as the Bank's promotion policy as well as the relevant guidelines for such promotion were uniform and common for all the operating circles, once the petitioner appeared in the interview for promotion to MMGS II effective from 1.8.8 7/1.8.8 8 in the Bengal Circle and was found unsuccessful he could not be allowed to take the said interview again in North Eastern Circle for promotion to MMGS II effective from 1.8.87/1.8.88. The aforesaid reason given by the respondents in their counter-affidavit indicated a reasonable and fair approach on the part of the said respondents and I do not find any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to appear in the interview for promotion to MMGS II effective from 1,8.87/1.8.88 for North Eastern Circle. 8. It, however, appears that after the Grievance Committee report was submitted, and while the present writ petition was pending before this Court, the Chief General Manager, North Eastern Circle passed an order dated 23.5.95 finally disposing of the grievance of the petitioner with detailed reasons. The Chief General Manager has, inter alia, observed that keeping in view the considerable delay in realeasing the petitioner from Maligaon Branch, the effective date of his promotion as Head Cashier has already been considered and the same has been preponed from 28.6.78 to 23.3.78, and has directed that the petitioner be considered afresh for promotion to the post of MMGS II with' effect from 1.8.87/1.8.88 (seniority channel) in the North Eastern Circle as a special case. Pursuant to the said order dated 23.5.95 of the Chief General Manager, North Eastern Circle, the petitioner appears to have been called for an interview at the Head Office on 5.12.95. But the petitioner refused to appear in the said interview on the plea that the matter was subjudice. 9. I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the respondents would now call the petitioner for an interview for promotion to MMGS II with effect from 1.8.87/1.8.88 (seniority channel) and in case the petitioner is found successful in the said interview, promote the petitioner with effect from 1.8.87/1.8.88 (seniority channel) to MMGS II as per the order dated 23.5.95 of the Chief General Manager, North Eastern Circle and if so promoted the petitioner be given all consequential service benefits. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. The writ petition stand disposed of.