C.V. SATHEESHCHANDRAN versus GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK AND ORS .

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 11-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 1 S.C.R. 569 
C.V. SATHEESHCHANDRAN 
A 
v . 
. GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK AND ORS . 
. (C.A. No. 337 of 2008) 
JANUARY 11, 2008 
B 
[P.P. NAOLEKAR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
~-
Service Law: 
Promotion - Bank service - Promotion of appellant-Clerk c 
in Officer's grade w.e.f. 1-8-1997 - Promotion order provided 
that Appellant would be on probation for one year which could 
be extended upto two years in Bank's discretion - Subsequent 
transfer - Representation filed by Appellant on 3-3-1999 
seeking reversion - Acceptance by Respondent Bank subject 
to conditions that appellant would forfeit permanently chances D 
for promotion to officer's cadre and also become disentitled 
-1 
for stagnation increments .:.. Challenge against - Held: 
" 
Request for reversion having been made after one year of 
promotion, condition regarding disentitlement for stagnation 
increments was in accordance with bi-parlite agreement dated E 
14-2-1995 and cannot be interfered with - However, the 
condition regarding permanent forfeiture of promotion was not 
I 
in accordance with the biparlite agreement dated 13-4-1988 '"" 
There was. no automatic confirmation of Appellant after. one 
-~ 
year- Reversion was sought for and granted to Appellant on F 
his request during period of probation - Appellant's case was 
... 
governed by Clause 3. 8.3(a) of the biparlite agreement dated 
13-4-1988 whereunder, he could be denied future promotion 
only for two years - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss:2(p) & 
18(1) - Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - r. 58 - Bi-
G 
parlite agreement dated 13-4-88; Clauses 3. 8. 2 and 3. 8. 3 and 
·-t 
Bi-parlite agreement dated 14-2-95; Clause 5(c)(ii). 
Appellant, Clerk in UCO Bank, was promoted to 
Officer's cadre in the rank of Assistant Manager w.e.f 1-8-
569 
H 
. ' 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A 1997. The promotion order specifically provided that he 
would be on probation for one year and the period of 
probation could be extended upto two years in the Bank's 
discretion. Appellant was subsequently transferred. On 
3-3-1999, Appellant filed representation seeking reversion 
B to original post in clerical cadre which Respondent Bank 
accepted on the condition that Appellant would forfeit 
permanently chances for promotion to officer's cadre and 
would also become disentitled for stagnation increments. 
Prior to his being relieved from his duty as Officer, 
c Appellant filed application seeking withdrawal of the 
request for his reversion. Respondent Bank rejected the 
application. Appellant filed writ petition challenging the 
reversion order which was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
D consideration is whether the consequential effect of 
reversion viz, conditions regarding permanent forfeiture 
of promotion and disentitlement to. get stagnation 
increments were in accordance with the bi-partite 
agreements entered into between the Bank and its 
E workmen dated 13-4-1988 and 14-2-1995. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellant was promoted to the post of 
officer on 1-8-1997. He had moved an application for 
F reversion on 3-3-1999, which is apparently beyond the 
period of one year. As per the bi-partite agreement dated 
14-2-1995, an employee shall not be entitled to seek 
stagnation increment if he has been reverted on his own 
request after one year from the date of promotion. Thus, 
G the said term of agreement authorizes the Bank to stop 
the stagnation increment of the employee who has been 
reverted on his own request after one year of his 
promotion. In the present case, Appellant's application 
requesting for reversion having been made after a period 
of one year from the date of promotion, the order of 
H 
• 
C.V. SATHEESHCHANDRAN v. GENERAL MANAGER, 
UCO BANK AND ORS. 
571 
reversion passed by the Bank to deny stagnation A 
increments to the appellant is in accordance with the 
agreement between the parties and cannot. be interfered 
. with. However, in the matter of stopping the promotion 
for all times to come, ithe order of the Bank is not in 
accordance with the bipartite agreement dated 13-4-1988. B 
[Paras 6, 7] [577-G; 578-A, B, C, DJ 
1.2. Under Clause 3.8,2 of the bi-partite agreement 
dated 13-4-1988, on promotion to the officers' cadre, the 
. 
' 
employee would be on probation for a period of one year 
and the period of probation may, if necessary, be C 
extended to a total period of two years in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.