High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 8601/2005 PRESENT HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears f or the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for giving effect to his pr omotion to Grade D rank in the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited (Apex Bank) with effect from 16.6.1998 when his immediate junior was promoted to the said ra nk. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. As per the seniority list of Grade E officers of Apex Bank dated 5.5. 1998, petitioner was placed at Sl. No.21. According to the petitioner, he should have been placed at Sl. No.10 above Sri Binood Kumar Baruah, who was instead p laced at Sl. No.10. Following the above determination of seniority, order dated 16.6.1998 was issued by the Managing Director of Apex Bank whereby at Sl. 6 Sri Binood Kumar Baruah, who was then serving as Superintendent in Grade E, was promoted to Grade D as Assistant Manager. 5. Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was regi stered and numbered as Civil Rule No.3034/1998, challenging the incorrect determ ination of his seniority and seeking promotion at par with Sri Binood Kumar Bar uah. Petitioner also challenged the promotion of his juniors.
Decision
6. In the meanwhile, the Board of Directors of Apex Bank in its meeting held on 21.6.2002 adopted a resolution, being resolution No.14, resolving that t he seniority lists of officers in different Grades would be reviewed as those w ere published without taking into account the inter se seniority of the officers in their previous posts and that seniority lists would be prepared afresh. In view of such resolution adopted by the Board of Directors, this Court by order dated 18.7.2003 disposed of Civil Rule No.3034/1998 with the observation that si nce resolution has been taken by the Board of Directors to review the seniority of the rival parties before the Court, Apex Bank should complete the said proces s. All consequential benefits as may be legitimately available to the petitioner upon implementation of the resolution and consequential determination of senior ity were also directed to be granted. Leave was granted to the petitioner to either revive the writ petition or to file a fresh one, if he continued to be a ggrieved. However, in the order dated 18.7.2003, the date of resolution of the Board of Directors was inadvertently mentioned as 21.6.2003 instead of 21.6.2 002. 7. Taking advantage of the above error in the date of the resolution of the Board of Directors as reflected in the order of the Court, Apex Bank author ity informed the petitioner vide communication dated 22.9.2003 that there was n o resolution of the Board of Directors dated 21.6.2003 and, therefore, the Ba nk was not able to take necessary action. 8. On an application filed by the petitioner, the above mistake was corr ected by the Court on 1.10.2004 by directing that the date 21.6.2003 mentioned in the order dated 18.7.2003 should be read as 21.6.2002. 9. Following the above order of this Court, Managing Director, Apex Bank passed an order dated 13.5.2005 declaring that the seniority of officers of the Bank under Grades C, D and E had been reviewed and revised partially a s per list annexed. Objections were invited from those who were aggrieved by su ch revision of seniority. As per the revised seniority list of officers in Grade D as on 1.5.2005, petitioner was placed at Sl. No.10 above Sri Binood Kumar Bar uah , who was placed at Sl. No.11. 10. Following re-fixation of his seniority, petitioner submitted repr esentation before the Managing Director of the Apex Bank on 25.5.2005 requestin g him to fix his pay scale as Branch Manager with retrospective effect. It may b e mentioned that petitioner was promoted in the meanwhile to Grade D as Branch Manager on 30.10.2002. However, the Apex Bank authority informed the petitione r vide communication dated 14.6.2005 that he shall be given the pay scale in Grade D with effect from 30.10.2002 i.e. the date of his promotion to Grade D. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation before the Managing Director (Administration), Apex Bank on 21.6.2005 requesting the said a uthority to grant him the scale of pay of Grade D with effect from the date of p romotion of Sri Binood Kumar Baruah and other junior officers. Petitioner was i nformed by communication dated 30.9.2005 that fixation of his pay scale in Grade D would be as per the date informed to the petitioner vide earlier letter dated 14.6.2005. 12. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking th e relief as indicated above. 13. By order dated 16.12.2005, this Court had admitted the writ petitio n. More than 7 years have gone by but the respondents have not filed any affida vit. 14. Considering the subject matter of the writ petition and the long per iod of time already spent, the Court is of the view that the case need not be kept pending any further. 15. ed. The facts as projected in the writ petition have not been disput 16. Question for consideration is as to whether petitioner’s promotion to Grade D should be given effect from 16.6.1998 when his immediate junior was p romoted ? Corollary to the above would be the question as to whether the petiti oner should be granted the pay scale of Grade D w.e.f. 16.6.1998 or whether the grant of such pay from the date of his present promotion i.e., from 30.10.2002 , should be maintained ? 17. As already noticed, the Board of Directors of the Apex Bank had reso lved to review and revise the seniority list of officers of the Bank in differen t Grades. This Court in the previous round of litigation, taking note of such re solution of the Board, observed that the Bank should complete the said process and directed that all consequential benefits as may be legitimately available to the petitioner upon implementation of the resolution and consequential determin ation of seniority should be granted. Thereafter, the seniority of officers of the Bank under Grades C,D and E were reviewed and revised. Following the said revision, the seniority list of officers in Grade D as on 1.5.2005 was revised a nd as per the revised seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.10 abo ve Sri Binood Kumar Baruah, who was placed at Sl. No.11. It is submitted by Mr . Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner that no objection was filed agai nst the revised seniority list. 18. It has already been noted that Sri Binood Kumar Baruah was promoted from Grade E to Grade D on 16.6.1998. On the other hand, petitioner was promoted on 30.10.2002. On his seniority being revised, the effect of promotion of the petitioner should have been given with effect from 16.6.1998 as per the next be low rule. Decision of the Apex Bank authorities to deny the said benefit to th e petitioner does not appear to be just and proper. Petitioner cannot be denied the benefit due to him on his seniority being revised. The initial erroneous fi xation of petitioner’s seniority was because of mistake committed by the respond ents. Therefore, petitioner should not be made to suffer for the mistake of the respondents. 19. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in the meanwhile, petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of supe rannuation. 20. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, respondents are directed to give effect to the promotion of the petitioner from Grade E to Grade D from 1 6.6.1998 and consequently to grant Grade D scale of pay to him with effect fro m 16.6.1998. His pay be revised accordingly. The arrear amount accrued on accou nt of the revised scale of pay shall be paid to the petitioner within a perio d of 4 (four) months from today. 21. Writ petition is allowed. No cost.