Bombay High Court
Shri B.M.Bathija vs The Central Bank Of India & Anr on 31 July, 2017
Bench: A.A. Sayed
WP 2803-99.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2803 OF 1999
Shri B.M. Bathija, an Indian
Inhabitant, residing at B-504,
Om Shakuntal Co-op. Soc.,
Opp. RTO Office, Easter Express
Highway, Naupada,
Thane (West) - 400 602. ...Petitioner
versus
1. The Central Bank of India
through its Chairman & Managing
Director having his office at
12th Floor, Chandramukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.
The General Manager (Personnel),
12th Floor, Chandramukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.
2. Shri Ajay Vyas
Maintenance Engineer,
Central Bank of India,
11th Floor, Chandramukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ...Respondents
Ms. Neeta P. Karnik, for Petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Talsania with Ms. Radha Ved i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co.
for Respondent no.1.
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:15:24 :::
WP 2803-99.doc
CORAM : A.A.SAYED AND
M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 26th July, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 31st July, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) :-
The petitioner by this Petition seeks promotion to the
post of Maintenance Engineer Grade II with effect from
1/6/1991 by assigning appropriate seniority in the seniority list
with consequential benefits. It is petitioner's case that though he
joined respondent no.1 on 21/4/1981 as Maintenance Engineer
he has not been promoted from then onwards till the date of the
filing of the Petition in 1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
pointed out now the petitioner has retired and even as of the
date of retirement the petitioner was not promoted.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the
Specialist Category and posted in the Architecture Section. The
petitioner is a Maintenance Engineer. The petitioner joined the
services of respondent no.1 on 21/4/1981. It is the stand of the
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:15:24 :::
WP 2803-99.doc
respondent that no promotion process for Maintenance
Engineers was held between 1981-1997. It is a settled law that
the petitioner has a right to be considered for promotion. The
petitioner has not come with the case that he is superseded in
the matter of the promotion. In this view of the matter it is not
possible for us to issue any directions to the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion upto 1997.
3. We may however consider one grievance made by
the petitioner. As there was hardly any scope for getting
promoted from the Specialist Category, the petitioner sometime
in 1996 had applied for conversion from the Specialist Category
to the General Category (Mainstream). It appears that the
respondent-bank initiated conversion process for the general
category and held interviews in respect thereof in January, 1996.
The petitioner participated in the same and was found
unsuitable. The petitioner continued to be in the Specialist
Category. In the promotion process for the General Category to
be held in 1997, the petitioner had given an option letter dated
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:15:24 :::
WP 2803-99.doc
27/2/1997 as he was eligible for participation in the said
promotion process. It is the stand of the respondent that by
virtue of the said letter, the petitioner was entitled for
conversion to the Mainstream and was entitled to participate in
the promotion process for the Mainstream to be held in April,
1997. The petitioner was allowed to participate. However, the
results thereof kept in "sealed cover" as some disciplinary
proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner. According
to the respondents, as the petitioner participated in the
promotion process for the General Category (Mainstream) in
April, 1997 he was thereafter treated as belonging to General
Category (Mainstream).
4. At this stage we may note a letter dated 9/12/1998
of the respondent addressed to the petitioner asking the
petitioner to submit his option in writing, if he so desires, for
conversion to Mainstream. The petitioner was asked to send his
option letter which should reach Central Staff Department,
Central Office, on or before 14/12/1998. It is very clear that the
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:15:24 :::
WP 2803-99.doc
conversion of the General Category to the Mainstream is
dependent on the petitioner submitting an option in terms of
Clause 15.2 of Promotion Policy for Officers (PPO). The
petitioner has not submitted any option in writing pursuant to
the letter dated 9/12/1998. We find the stand of the respondent
unjustified in treating the petitioner as belonging to the
Mainstream Category merely because he participated in the
promotion process for the General Category (Mainstream). The
policy of the respondent requires the petitioner to submit an
option for conversion to the General Category (Mainstream). In
the absence of the petitioner submitting such an option he
cannot be treated as belonging to the General Category
(Mainstream).
5. The petitioner has relied upon the circular dated 24 th
April, 2000 stating therein about the selection process in the
category of Maintenance Engineer (MMG Scale II to MMG Scale
III (Specialist) for normal channel. The last date of which was
6/5/2000.
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:15:24 :::
WP 2803-99.doc
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that
right from the date of his appointment on 21/4/1981 till the
date of his retirement he was not promoted even once. Learned
Counsel for the respondent however submits that the petitioner
was given the benefit of advanced increments.
7. The petitioner's case for promotion in our opinion
should be considered for promotion from the category of
Maintenance Engineer (Specialist Category). The petitioner has
retired and therefore the petitioner can now be only notionally
promoted if he is found fit for promotion. Hence following order.
ORDER
1. The respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion from 1997 onwards in respect of
the selection process which may have been conducted within a
period of eight weeks from today.
2. The petitioner's case for promotion from the year
1997 onwards may be considered on the basis that the petitioner
WP 2803-99.doc
belongs to the Maintenance Engineer (Specialist Category) in
accordance with the rules and regulations as applicable and if he
is found fit he may be notionally promoted to the next higher
post from the eligible date.
3. In case the petitioner is found fit for promotion to
the next higher post he may be granted consequential benefits
including arrears within a period of four months.
4. Rule partly made absolute with no order as to costs.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)
