LexRAKESH MEHTA AND OTHERS versus PUNJAB AND SINO BANK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 11 S.C.R. 278 RAKESH MEHTA AND OTHERS V. PUNJAB AND SINO BANK (Civil Appeal No. 10908 of 2014) DECEMBER 09, 2014 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ,] Service Law: C Punjab & Sind Bank (Officers) Regulations, 1982 - Reg 18 - Seniority - Claim of, by the appellants - Appellants promoted from Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-1) to Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-11) and thereafter, horizontally transferred to the Specialist Electronic o Data Processors Cadre within the MMGS-11 in the year 1997 - Some officers belonging to the JMGS-1 cadre promoted vertically as Electronic Data Processors, later in the year 1997 - Seniority between the promotees from the JMGS-1 and those appointees as Electronic Data Processor, by horizontal E movement, including the appellants from the MMGS-11 - Held: Seniority between employees is a vested right - Adjudication of the inter-se seniority between the appellants, and other promotees from the JMGS-1, 1s to be determined, on the basis of the prevailing Rule which was Reg 18 - Under Reg 18, the date of appointment to a grade or scale would determine the F superiority on the subject of seniority - Appellants came to the higher scale, on an earlier date vis-a-vis those who came to be promoted to the Specialist Cadre, from the JMGS-1 - Thus, the ap~ellants are superior, on the subject of seniority, with reference to promotees from the JMGS-1 - Government G Circular dated 26.9.2002, cannot be taken into consideration to determine the seniority of the appellants since if was issued well after the inter-se seniority between the appellants and the promotees, was determined under Reg 18 - A H 278 • • RAKESH MEHTA v. PUNJAB AND SINO BANK 279 communication issued subsequently, would not alter the inter- A se seniority position, which had crystallized earlier under the existing 1982 Regulations - Government Circular cannot have an overriding effect, over the prevailing 1982 Regulations - As regards, appellants claim to consider them for promotion to MMGS-111, respondent-Bank directed to carry B out the said promotion exercise. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10908 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2011 of the High C Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 575 of 2010. WITH C.A. No. 10909 of 2014. G.S. Chaturvedi (for Surya Kant), Jagat Arora (for Rajiv Nanda) for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.S. KHEHAR, J. Civil Appeal No.10908 of 2014 D E 1. The appellants were promoted from the Junior Management Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as the F 'JMGS-1') to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMGS-11') on 26.4.1996. On 10.3.1997, the Punjab and Sind Bank created a Specialist Cadre of officers designated as Electronic Data Processors. Since the appellants were eligible for appointment as Electronic G Data Processors, under the terms and conditions laid down by the respondent-bank, they opted for appointment to the said Specialist Cadre. It is necessary to mention, that the Electronic Data Processors cadre, was admittedly created in the MMGS- 11. Pursuant to the exercise of their option, all the appellants were H 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • (2014] 11 S.C.R. . A inducted into the said Specialist Cadre on 16.09.1997. Since the appellants were members of the MMGS-11 even prior to their induction into the Specialist Cadre, it is apparent that their appointment as Electronic Data Processors was a horizontal movement within the MMGS-11. B 2. Appointment to the cadre of Electronic Data Processors, was also possible by promotion, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility, from the feeder cadre of JMGS-1. Some officers belonging to the JMGS-1 cadre, were C considered and promoted as Electronic Data Processors, at or around the same time, as the appellants. Promotion to the Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre, envisaged a vertical movement from a lower cadre (JMGS-1), to a superior cadre (MMGS-11). In other words, those who were promoted to D the Specialist Cadre, entered the MMGS-11, for the first time. A seniority dispute arose between the promotees from the JMGS- 1, and those appointees as Electronic Data Processor, by horizontal movement (including the appellants) from the MMGS- 11. The promotees to the Specialist Cadre claimed superiority E in seniority, because
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.