Punjab National Bank And Anr. vs R.K. Jain
2007 Latest Caselaw 1768 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd October, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein holding that the respondent is entitled to MMS-II with effect from the date he commenced officiating in the post of MMS-II as Manager on 10.12.1980 with further directions which are to the following effect:

...the petitioner should be given consequential benefit of notional pay fixation for the intervening period also notional promotion, for the intervening period up to the date he filed the petition. The financial benefits accruing on account of such notional fixation of pay scales / promotion shall be admissible only w.e.f. 1-9-98 in accordance with the rule applicable in the respondent. The respondent shall comply with these directions with in three months from today. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

2.The aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing in giving the benefit of MMS-II with effect from 8.12.1980. It is submitted before us that the case of the respondent cannot be said to be governed by the decision of the case in S. Sai Nathan v. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel), New Bank of India and Ors. in W.P. No. 14725/1984 wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has passed orders directing for giving seniority to Mr. S. Sai Nathan in the cadre of Middle Management Scale Grade-II with effect from 8.12.1980. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the case of the respondent herein would be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4223/1994 titled as K.B. Sharma v. Union of India which was disposed of on 28.1.1998 and not by the case of S. Sai Nathan(supra).

3. The appellants themselves had considered the case of the respondent for giving him appropriate seniority position and while doing so they had given seniority position to the respondent in the aforesaid MMS-II grade effective from 1.1.1983. Subsequently, however, on the basis of a representation submitted by the respondent for giving him the benefit of MMS-II with effect from 8.12.1980, the appellant had given seniority benefit to the respondent in the MMS-II grade effective from 22.5.1981. It is admitted by the appellant that Mr. Mandody, a junior to the respondent was promoted to the said grade on 22nd May, 1981.

4. The plea of the appellant is that K.B. Sharma case (supra) applies and S. Sai Nathan case (supra) is not applicable, was examined by the learned Single Judge. On considering the records, the learned Single Judge held that similar contentions on merits were raised before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Sai Nathan(supra) which decided the matter in favor of the employee. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The issue raised in the present petition was fully covered and governed by the decision in S. Sai Nathan(supra).

5. The decision in K.B. Sharma case (supra) has no application to the present case as what was considered in K.B. Sharma's case (supra) was the legality of the regulations framed by the appellant herein and not the question of inter se seniority of officers. On this ground the review application filed by the appellant herein in Sai Nathan's case (supra) was dismissed and the decision in the case of K.B. Sharma's case (supra) was distinguished.

6. On going through the records we find that the appellant had stated in their letter dated 19th November, 1992 that the request of the respondent to give him the benefit of promotion from 8.12.1980 cannot be considered at that stage because the appellant had filed a Review Petition in the Supreme Court in the S. Sai Nathan's case. It was also intimated to the respondent that no action could be taken on the representations by any of the officers whose cases were similar to S. Sai Nathan's case, so long as the Review Application was not disposed of by the Supreme Court. The same position was reiterated by the petitioner in their letter dated 14th December, 1992, wherein also it was stated that the Bank had filed a Review Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri S. Sai Nathan and it was not possible to consider the request of the respondent at that stage. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Sai Nathan's case is applicable to the case of the respondent. Admittedly, Shri S. Sai Nathan is junior to the respondent in seniority and he has been given the benefit of seniority effective from 8.12.1980. We find no reason as to why the respondent should be denied the benefit as given to Shri S. Sai Nathan. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the case of the respondent is similar to that of Shri S. Sai Nathan. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.