State
Bank of India & ANR Vs. V. Parthasarathy [1992] INSC 227 (9 November 1992)
[KULDIP
SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]
ACT:
Civil
Services:
State
Bank of India-Promotion to the post of Head Clerk- Circular No. 42-Clause Three
options-Outside the city-within city and within the same office-Debarment on
refusal of third and final offer-Local Head Office and five other offfices to
be considered as one Unit-Final offer made in one such office Whether valid and
debars the optees permanently on refusal to accept.
HEADNOTE:
The
appellant-Bank issued Circular No. 42 containing an understanding reached with
the Staff-union laying down the policy for promotion of clerks to the post of
Head Clerks.
As per
clause 1(d) of the Circular the employees who decline to accept Head Clerk s
post at a branch office outside the city in which they work, will have a
further option when a vacancy arises at any one of the Bank's offices within
that city. However, this was subject to the condition that at the material time
there was no other senior employee who had similarly declined the post outside
his branch office, in which case the senior-most would have the first choice.
It was further provided that if an employee declines to accept the post of Head
Clerk at an office within the same city, his case would be considered only when
a vacancy arises at his office. This was also subject to the condition that
there was no senior employee similarly situated at the material time. If the
third and final offer is declined, there would be a permanent debarment of
promotion.
Since
there were six offices at the Madras Local Head Office, a common seniority was
maintained and all the six offices were considered as one office, viz. local
Head Office of which the other five offices were only parts.
The
Respondents declined their first, second and final offers, though indisputably
the final offer was made to them for being posted in an office forming part of
the local Head Office. Both the Respondents moved the High Court by way of Writ
Petitions and the High Court took the view that the final offer made was not in
the same office and so they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the
same office.
Being
aggrieved by the said two decisions of the High Court, the appellant-Bank
preferred the present appeals.
On the
question of interpretation of clause 1(d) of the circular in question:
Allowing
the appeals, this Court,
HELD
:1. The High Court's interpretation of cl. 1(d) of the Circular that the third
offer made was not in the office where the Respondents were working and
therefore their refusal to accept the post did not exhaust the third option and
they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the Office where they were
working is incorrect in view of the fact that the local Head Office was split
into six different offices which together constituted one unit. By refusing to
accept the third and final offer, the Respondents had clearly exhausted all the
three options and had become permanently debarred from seeking promotion to the
post of Head Clerk. [366-E-G]
2.
This Court does not intend to interfere with the appointment of the respondents
to the post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office in the facts and circumstances
of these matters which show that in one case a fortuitous appointment had
arisen due to death of an employee within almost a month of the Respondent's
refusal to accept the offer, and in the other case, the Respondent has already
been accommodated in the post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office itself.
However,
this would not be treated as a precedent and this would not affect the
interpretation of clause 1(d) of the Circular, placed by this Court. [366-H;
367-A]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4799 4800 of 1992.
From
the Judgments dated 4.3.1992 and 8.4.1992 in Madras High Court in W.P. No.
246/92 and W.A. No. 349 of 1992.
G. Ramaswamy
Attorney General, K. Sankaran, A. Rangananthan and A.V. Rangam for the
Appellants.
M.K. Ramamurthi,
M.A. Krishnmoorthy, M.A. Chinnaswamy, H. Subramaniam and Ms. C. Ramamurthi for
the Respondents.
Rajendra
Sachhar, Ambrish Kumar and M.D. Pandey for the Inter-vener.
The
Order of the Court was delivered:
Intervention
application is allowed.
Leave
granted.
Civil
Appeal No. 4799 of 1992.
2. The
controversy in this case is in a narrow compass.
The
appellant-Bank issued Staff Circular No. 42 containing an understanding reached
with the Bank staff-union laying down the policy for promotion of clerks to the
post of Head Clerks. Clause 1(d) of the said circular states as follows:
Employees
who decline to accept Head Clerk's post at a Branch Office outside their place
of service, i.e., outside their city, will again be offered the appointment
only when a vacancy arises at any one of the offices within that city, provided
that at the material time there is no other senior employees at that office who
had earlier declined a posting outside his Branch, as a Head Clerk in which
case the senior-most employee will first be offered the appointment. Also, if
an employee declines to accept the post of a Head Clerk at an office within the
same city, his case for appointment as Head-Clerk will be considered only when
a vacancy arises at his office, in the order of his seniority. His case cannot
be considered for a vacancy at any of the other offices in the city."
3. It
will be apparent from the above provision of the said clause that those
employees who decline to accept the Head Clerk's post at a branch office which
is outside the city in which they work will have a further option. Such employees
would be offered the post of Head Clerk again but only when a vacancy arises at
any one of the Bank's offices within that city. This is of course subject to
the condition that at the material time, there is no other senior employee who
had similarly declined the post outside his branch office, in which case, the
senior-most would have the first choice. The further provision of this rule and
with which we are concerned in the present case is as follows. If an employee
declines to accept the post of Head Clerk at an office within the same city his
case for appointment as Head Clerk would be considered only when a vacancy
arises at his office. This is also subject to the condition that there is no
senior employee similarly situated at the material time.
If the
third and the final offer for the post of Head Clerk is declined, there is a
permanent debarment of the promotion. One more thing necessary to be stated
before we come to the facts of the present case is that the appellant- Bank has
a local Head Office at Madras. In 1972, it was split into two -
the local Head Office and Madras Main Branch. In 1976-77, there was a further
splitting up of the local Head Office and the Main Branch and ultimately in
1979, the Madras Local Head Office was divided into following six offices as
part of the same Head Office:
"(i)
Local Head Office (ii) Madras Main Branch (iii) Overseas Branch (iv) Regional
Office, which is called Zonal Office (v) The Commercial Branch (vi) Siruthozhil
Branch"
4.
There is no dispute that as far as the Clerks and the Head Clerks in all the
six parts of the same local Head Office are concerned, a common seniority list
is maintained.
The
effect of the aforesaid arrangements for the purposes of the clause 1(d) is
that "the employees" in the said clause means the employees in all
the said six parts of the local Head Office. In other words, if a vacancy for a
Head Clerk occurred at any of the said six offices, it was considered to be a
vacancy in one office, viz.,the local Head Office of which the other five
offices were only parts.
5. It
appears that respondent Parthasarathy was working as a clerk in the Madras
Regional Office (now called Zonal Office) which is, as will be clear from
above, a part of the Local Head Office itself. On 21st August, 1973, he was offered the post of Head Clerk at Deva Kottain
which is outside Madras city. This offer was declined by
him. On 1st July, 1980, he was offered the post of Head
Clerk in the Sowkarpet branch office in the same city which was less than 2 kms,
from his Regional office where he was working. He declined the said offer too.
He was then entitled to be considered for posting as Head Clerk only in his
office which meant in any of the six parts of the local Head Office, that being
the third and the final offer that could be made to him. The third offer was
made to him for the post of Head Clerk at the Overseas branch, and that being
part of the same local Head Office, he was bound to accept it. However, he
declined the third and the final offer also, and issued a lawyer's notice to
the Bank contending that the Overseas branch was different from the Regional
office where he was working and, therefore, the offer given to him was contrary
to the said clause 1(d). The allegations made in the notice were of course
denied by the bank.
6. On 6th September, 1983, one A. Nizamuddin who was working
as Head Clerk in the Regional office passed away and that post became vacant.
On 24th September, 1983, the respondent filed a writ
petition before the High Court for quashing the third and the final offer made
to him on 4th August 1983, and for a direction for posting
him in the Regional office where the vacancy had occurred. The High Court took
the view that the third offer made was not for the post of the Head Clerk in
the same office where the respondent was working and, therefore, his refusal to
accept the post did not exhaust the third option and he was entitled to the
vacancy created by Nizamuddin's death in the Regional office where the
respondent was working. We are afraid this interpretation is incorrect in view
of the position explained above with regard to the local Head Office which was
split into six different offices which together constituted one unit. The
respondent, when he was offered the third option in the Overseas branch, was
offered the post in the same office where he was working, the Regional office
being as much a part of the Head Office as the Overseas branch. By refusing to
accept the said third and the final offer, the respondent had clearly exhausted
all his three options and had become permanently debarred from seeking
promotion to the post of Head Clerk.
7. We,
however, do not interfere with the appointment of the respondent to the post of
Head Clerk in the Regional office in the facts and circumstances of the case
which show that a fortuitous appointment had arisen within almost a month of
his refusal to accept the offer. This, however, will not be treated as a
precedent nor does it affect the interpretation that we have placed on the
clause 1(d) as above.
Civil
Appeal No. 4800 of 1992 In this case also, the respondent Sampath was working
as a Clerk in Madras Regional Office. The first offer of the post of Head Clerk
was made to him on 6th
August, 1973 at Mudukulathur
branch which is in Madras city. This was declined by him. On 12th May, 1980, he was given the second offer for
the post of Head Clerk at Air Force Station branch, Tambaram which was in Madras city. The third and final offer was
made to him on 4th
August, 1983 to the
post of Head Clerk in the Stationery department of the Madras Local Head
Office. There is no dispute that Stationery department of the Local Head Offfice
and the Regional Office form part of one unit, viz., Madras Local Head Office.
The respondent declined this offer as well, and on 23rd January, 1984 filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the
third offer and for posting him in his office, viz., Regional Office as the
Head Clerk. The learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order making
the third offer and allowed the petition following the earlier decision in Parthasarathy's
case with which we have dealt with earlier.
The
Division Bench of the High Court also confirmed the order.
For
the reasons we have given in C.A.No. 4799 of 1992, we are unable to accept the
interpretation given by the High Court on clause 1(d) of Staff Circular No. 42.
However, if in the present case, the respondent has already been accommodated
in the post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office itself, we do not intend to interfere
with the same.
It is
nonetheless made clear that it is the interpretation that we have placed on the
said clause that will prevail and not the interpretation placed by the High
Court.
With
these observations, the appeals are allowed only to the extent that the
interpretation placed by the appellant-Bank on clause l(d) of the Staff
Circular No. 42 is correct and the decision of the High Court on the point is
incorrect. There will be no order as to costs.
Back