Reserve Bank Of India vs Presiding Officer & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 628 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                     W.P.(C) 2541/1998
%                                          Reserved on: 11th December, 2012
                                           Decided on: 8th February, 2013
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA                                      ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
                                       Mr. H.S. Parihar and Mr. K.S. Parihar,
                                       Advocates.
                      versus
PRESIDING OFFICER & ORS                                  ..... Respondents

                   Through:            Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate for
                                       the workman/Respondent No. 2 with
                                       Respondent No. 2 in person.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. By the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 2nd January, 1998 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal held that the action of the Petitioner in not confirming Respondent No. 2 as Assistant Treasurer and promoting his juniors through an interview held on 29th July, 1987 was not justified and Respondent No.2 was entitled to be confirmed as Assistant Treasurer w.e.f. 1st August, 1987 with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the Reserve Bank of India in note examination section of the Cash Department, the four promotional posts in the Class-III cadre are Coin Note Examiner Grade-II, Coin Note Examiner Grade-I, Teller and from Teller to Assistant Treasurer which is a Class-I post for officers grade. However, to meet the exigency of service and the fact that the post cannot be kept vacant if on a particular day a Coin Note Examiner Grade-I suddenly takes leave or is absent or any Teller is absent then in order to ensure the smooth functioning, the senior

most Coin Note Examiner Grade-II is promoted to Coin Note Examiner Grade-I for that particular day and the Coin Note Examiner Grade-I is promoted to Teller for that day. Similarly for a casual vacancy due to sudden absenteeism to the post of Assistant Treasurer the senior most Teller is promoted for a day as Assistant Treasurer. The said promotions are on day-to-day basis and are purely due to administrative exigencies to ensure proper functioning of the bank. Respondent No. 2 was never promoted as Assistant Treasurer on 1st August, 1987 till 3rd August, 1987 on regular basis. It was a promotion for three days to meet the exigency of service. For promotion from Teller to Assistant Treasurer, seniority-cum-suitability is looked into. Thus seniority is not the only criteria. Respondent No.2 was interviewed on 29th July, 1987 however, on 5th August, 1987 when the result was declared, it was found that Respondent No. 2 had not been empanelled for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasurer. Thus at no point of time, regular promotion was granted to Respondent No.2 and therefore, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the regular promotion having been granted to Respondent No. 2, he was entitled to be confirmed as Assistant Treasurer w.e.f. 1st August, 1987 with all consequential benefits is wholly illegal. Thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 on the other hand contends that Respondent No. 2 was the senior most person and his seniority could not have been ignored. Even Respondent No. 2 in his statement of claim clearly stated that the seniority has never been ignored in the Petitioner organization and thus the same could not have been done in the case of Respondent No. 2. By promoting persons junior to Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner has taken recourse to unfair labour practice and has violated Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. As regards the contention that Respondent No. 2 was not found suitable in the interview it is stated that neither any show cause notice was given to Respondent No. 2 nor any enquiry ordered nor was there any adverse entry recorded. Since it was an admitted case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 was the senior most and the Petitioner failed to show that the performance of Respondent No. 2 was not good, the Trial Court was justified in directing confirmation of Respondent No. 2 to the post of Assistant Treasurer. Reliance is placed on Mohammad Shujat Ali and others vs. Union of India and others, 1975 (1) SCR 449. It is also contended that Respondent No. 2 has since reached the age of superannuation and the only relief he is entitled to would be in terms of the monitory relief.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The facts in nutshell are that Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Coin Note Examiner Grade-II on 12th December, 1960 with the Petitioner. On 28th October, 1980 he was promoted as Coin Note Examiner Grade-I and then as Teller on 1st August, 1985. The dispute in the present petition relates to promotion of Respondent No. 2 from the post of Teller to the Assistant Treasurer. On 19th July, 1987 interviews were held for the anticipated vacancies to the post of Assistant Treasurer for the panel year 1987-88 wherein Respondent No. 2 was also interviewed along with nine other Tellers. On 5th August, 1987 a letter was issued to Respondent No. 2 informing him that he was not found suitable for the post of Assistant Treasurer. However, in the meantime, from 1st August, 1987 to 3rd August, 1987 Respondent No. 2 was promoted on day-to-day basis in exigency of service as Assistant Treasurer purely as an ad-hoc arrangement. On 22nd August, 1988 Respondent No. 2 with two other person who were found

suitable by the selection board were called for interview against the anticipated vacancies to the post of Assistant Treasurer for the panel year 1988-89 when Respondent No. 2 and one more candidate were found suitable and empanelled for the post of Assistant Treasurer. Thus thereafter on 13th March, 1989 Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Treasurer on regular basis against the regular vacancy. Respondent No. 2 raised a dispute on which reference was made to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the following terms:

"Whether the action of the Management of RBI in not confirming Shri Narsing Das Gupta, as Asstt. Treasurer and promoting some junior employee through an interview on 29.7.1987 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

6. In the statement of claim filed by Respondent No. 2 it was stated that he was called for interview for the post of Assistant Treasurer along with nine other Tellers on 29th July, 1987 however, some of them were not confirmed. Respondent No. 2 had a very clean service record with no adverse remarks in his service book. However, he was not considered for promotion and his juniors were selected. It was further stated that Respondent No. 2 was officiating as Assistant Treasurer since 1984 on day- to-day basis and on regular basis from 1st August, 1987. In fact this alleged officiating appointment/promotion as Assistant Treasurer on regular basis from 1st August, 1987 to 3rd August, 1987 is the real bone of contention.

7. It was further stated that the preparation of the 1987 panel was full of infirmities and the claim of seniors which was never ignored earlier was ignored in this year Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Management on 10th October, 1987 which was rejected on 30th October,

1987 and thereafter raised an industrial dispute. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Petitioner besides taking number of other legal objections it was stated that Respondent No. 2 was called for interview for empanelment to the post of Assistant Treasurer with nine other eligible candidates however, after the interview the Selection Board did not find Respondent No. 2 and other two employees suitable for promotion. The procedure of promotion was duly explained and concept of day-to-day promotion during the panel year was also explained. It was stated that no discrimination was caused to Respondent No. 2 and the non-selection was duly informed vide letter dated 5th August, 1987 and thereafter replies were sent in respect of his representations also. It was admitted that Respondent No. 2 was empanelled for the post of Assistant Treasurer for the year 1988- 89 and was appointed to officiate as Assistant Treasurer on regular basis w.e.f. 13th March, 1989.

8. In the present case, the main bone of contention is working of Respondent No. 2 as Assistant Treasurer on 1st August, 1987 to 3rd August, 1987 though the claim of Respondent No. 2 was that he was officiating on those three days on regular basis but the claim of the Petitioner was that he officiated on day-to-day basis and not on regular basis on the said dates. The affidavit of the Management clearly stated that Respondent No. 2 had worked occasionally as Assistant Treasurer in leave vacancies purely on day- to-day basis like other candidates, who were interviewed along with them. The learned Trial Court failed to notice this distinction and came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 2 officiated from 1st August, 1987 to 3rd August, 1987 on regular basis and thus he was entitled to be confirmed as Assistant Treasurer w.e.f. 1st August, 1987. No document was placed by

Respondent No. 2 before the learned Trial Court to show that his officiating as Assistant Treasurer from 1st August, 1987 to 3rd August, 1987 was on regular basis and not on day-to-day basis. In the absence of any evidence to fortify this claim and the denial by the Petitioner, the learned Trial Court could not have returned the finding as returned by it. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 regarding unfair labour practice and the fair interview not being conducted, it may be noted that there is no allegation whatsoever against any member of the interview board. The promotion to the post of Assistant Treasurer was not purely on account of seniority but as per seniority-cum-suitability. The interview board having not found Respondent No. 2 suitable it could not be held that Respondent No. 2 was promoted on 1st August, 1987 on regular basis. Accordingly the impugned award is set aside.

9. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 08, 2013 'vn'