Madras High Court
M.Michael Raj vs The Canara Bank on 9 September, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
REV.A.(MD)No.65 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
REV.A(MD)No.65 of 2023
M.Michael Raj ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Canara Bank,
represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Having its Head Office at
No.112, JC Road, Bangalore – 560 052.
2.The General Manager (Industrial Relations Section),
(Personnel Wing), Canara Bank,
No.112, JC Road, Bangalore – 560 052.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank,
Human Resources Management Section,
Circle Office, East Veli Street,
Madurai – 625 001.
4.The Chief Manager,
Canara Bank,
Karaikudi Branch, Karaikudi – 630 001. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w
Section 114 of CPC to review the order, dated 06.09.2016 made in W.A.
(MD)No.20 of 2013.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.A.(MD)No.65 of 2023
For Petitioner : Ms.V.J.Latha
For Respondents : Mr.C.Karthi
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The Review Application has been filed by the appellant in
W.A(MD)No.20 of 2013 aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.09.2016, by
which judgment, a coordinate Division Bench of this Court had dismissed
the Writ Appeal and confirmed the order dated 09.10.2012 passed in W.P.
(MD)No.13075 of 2012.
2.We are deeply conscious that the scope of a Review Application is
limited and could be pressed into service only when there is an error
apparent on the face of records or there has been a wrong application of
fundamental principles. A Review would not lie, if the Court would have to
apply its mind to adjudicate on any of the grounds raised, as that would be
converting the hearing into an appeal over the judgment under the review.
3.The Writ Petition had been filed by the Review Applicant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
questioning an order of the third respondent, the Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank, Human Resources Management Section, Circle Office, East
Veli Street, Madurai-625 001, dated 23.03.2011 and a further order dated
08.08.2021 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents in the Writ
Petition to grant stagnation increment to the Writ Petitioner and to release
the same with effect from 01.09.1990.
4.The facts of the case in brief are that the Review Applicant had
joined service of Canara Bank as a Clerk on 29.07.1978. He was promoted
as Officer JMG-I on 01.03.1988. On his request, he was reverted to the post
of Clerk on 26.03.1990. We are informed that he had attained the maximum
pay scale in the year 1991. It is contended that at the time of his promotion
and subsequent reversal, the IV Bipartite Settlement between the Employees
Union and the Management dated 08.09.1983 was in force. It is stated that
if that Bipartite Settlement was put into effect, the Writ Petitioner would
have been entitled for stagnation increment, since he had qualified for the
same by completing five years of service after reaching the maximum scale
of pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The Writ Petitioner had also worked for two years as Officer which
would indicate that he had not refused promotion. After serving as an
Officer for two years, he opted to be reverted back as Clerk and he had been
so reverted as Clerk. As per the IV Bipartite Settlement, an employee is
entitled for stagnation increment, if there is no further promotional avenue
available after completing five years of service and after reaching the
maximum scale of pay.
6.The Employees' Union and the Management had later entered into a
V Bipartite Settlement and it is contended that any Bipartite Settlement was
always prospective in nature. The IV Bipartite Settlement came into effect
on 17.09.1984. The V Bipartite Settlement came into effect on 10.04.1989.
The VI Bipartite Settlement came into effect on and from 14.02.1995.
7.It is contended on behalf of the Review Applicant by the learned
Counsel that only the IV Bipartite Settlement would apply to examine the
claim of the Review Applicant. It is contended that however, the Division
Bench had proceeded to examine the case of the Writ Petitioner in terms of
the VI Bipartite Settlement and had therefore, dismissed the Writ Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
8.An alternative argument is also advanced that similar to that of the
Review Applicant, another employee, by name, K.V.Raman, who had also
similarly been originally appointed as Stenographer in the year 1977 and
was redesignated as Clerk in the year 1983, was promoted as Officer on
01.01.1983. He had also opted to be reverted back to the post of Clerk and
was so reverted on 07.02.1987. He had also, similar to that of the Writ
Appellant, attained the maximum pay scale in the year 1991. During the
period between promotion and the reversion, the IV Bipartite Settlement
dated 08.09.1983 was in force. He also laid a similar Writ Petition seeking
stagnation increment. A learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14147 of 2011, by
order, dated 25.11.2016, applied the terms of the IV Bipartite Settlement
and had granted him necessary relief. This order was questioned by the
respondents herein before the Division Bench of this Court in W.ANo.617
of 2017. By judgment dated 20.11.2017, the Division Bench had refused to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ
Appeal. The respondents herein/Canara Bank had then filed a Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal in (C)No.5477 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 09.03.2018, had
dismissed the same.
9.It is thus evident that the Review Applicant who also falls in the
same time line as that of K.V.Raman, would naturally harbour a legitimate
expectation that the IV Bipartite Settlement alone should be applied to him
also.
10.Notice has been directed and learned Counsel had also entered
appearance on behalf of the respondents and had also filed counter.
11.In the counter affidavit, the respondents had placed reliance on the
judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Canara
Bank -vs- V.K.Grover in LPA No.245 of 2007. That was a case wherein the
employee had opted for reversion, when the IV Bipartite Settlement was in
force and the issue was whether he was entitled for stagnation increment in
accordance with V Bipartite settlement. It was contended that the Division
Bench of Delhi High Court had not only refused to grant him such
stagnation increment, but had also noted that he had refused to opt for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
promotion. The facts are distinguishable, since the Review Applicant was
promoted and after working as Officer for a period of two years, opted to
revert back as a Clerk and a consequential order was passed reverting him
as Clerk. He had never refused promotion.
12.In the counter, it had also been stated that it is not correct to state
that the Bipartite Settlement was only prospective and that it would be
retrospective in effect. The said issue will have to be examined in view of
the judgment in K.V.Raman case (referred supra).
13.In view of all these reasons, we inclined to allow the Review
Appeal. In effect, the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.20
of 2013 dated 06.09.2016 is set aside. We direct the Registry to place the
matter before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for appropriate orders for
listing of W.A.(MD)No.20 of 2023. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
[C.V.K., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]
09.09.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
