K. THIMMAPPA AND ORS. versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BD. OF DIRS. SBI AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 05-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. THIMMAPPA AND ORS. 
v. 
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BD. OF DIRS. SB! AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 5, 2000 
B 
[G.B. PATTA~AIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL. JJ.] 
Service Luw : 
Uniformity and standardisation in the conditions of service -Held. 
C placemen/ of grade I officers in two different grades, on the basis of their 
confirmation, is not discriminatory and violative of Article 14- -[State Bank 
of India Officers (Determination of Terms und Conditions of Service) Order, 
1979}-Constitution of India-Article 14. 
Constitution of India-'-Article 226 - Dismissal of Writ petitions on the 
D ground of laches---Held, dismissal possible when there is no infraction of 
fundamental rights under the Constitution. 
E 
In 1973 the Central Government appointed a Committee, calied Pillai 
Committee for bringing about uniformity and standardisation in the conditions 
of service of officers of various Nationalised Banks. The recommendations 
of the Committee was adopted by Respondent State Bank of India, with the 
passing of State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and 
Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (Conditions of Service Order) which came 
into effect from 1.10.1979. The Conditions of Service Order deals with re-
structuring and placement of existing officers on the appointed date 
F (1.10.1979) in corresponding grades and scale as per Schedule I to the Order. 
G 
H 
This resulted in bifurcation of Grade I officers int.u two categories, i.e. officers 
confirmed before 31.12.1972 and officers ~onfirmed after 31.12.1972. 
Officers confirmed before 31.12.1972 were placed in Middle Management 
Grade Scale II in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2000 while the officers confirmed 
after 31.12.1972 were placed in the Junior Management Grade Scale I in the 
scale of pay of Rs. 700-1800 along with officers of Grade II prior to the 
1.10.1979. The petitioners challenged the bifurcation under the Conditions 
of Service Order by filing Writ Petitions in different High Courts, which 
were transferred to this Court. 
The petitioners contended that bifurcation of Grade I officers on the 
368 
K. THIMMAPPA v. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BD. OF DIR. 
369 
basis of the date of confirmation is wholly irrational and choosing the date A 
as 31.12.1972 without reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved 
is arbitrary and must be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution 
which must be struck down. They contended that placement of some officers 
of Grade I with the officers of Grade II in Junior Management Grade Scale 
I after I. I 0. 79 is demotion in service, which is discriminatory and arbitrary. B 
The respondent-bank contended that Conditions of Service Order, 1979, 
is a statutory order made under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 
1955 and the said order purports to rationalise and standardise the 
administrative set up of the Management cadres by restructuring and 
placement taking relevant and germane materials into consideration which C 
is not liable to be interfered with by a Court of law. The cut off date viz. 
31.12.1972 had been fixed after taking into account the probation period, 
entitlement of confirmation after completion of probation period, minimum 
requirement of six years service in the Grade and requirement of placement 
to be made on 1.10.1979. Unless a strong case is made out for malafides or 
for infraction of a constitutional provision, the bifurcation of officers should D 
not be treated as discriminatory under Article 14 of Constitution. The 
respondent-bank further contended that the Writ Petitions filed by the 
petitioners should be dismissed on account of laches and should not be allowed 
to make stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. 
Dismissing the transfer petitions, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation 
and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. If the Rule 
Making Authority takes care to reasonably classify persons for a particular 
purpose and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well-defined 
class then it would not be open to the charge of discrimination. To pass the F 
test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled : (a) that 
the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which 
distinguishes persons or things which are grouped together from others left 
out of the group and (b) that the differentia must have a rational relation to 
the object sought to be ach

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