SH. K.B. SHARMA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 28-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SH. K.B. SHARMA AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 28, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service law : 
New Bank of India (Officer's Service) Regulations, I 982-Regulation 
C 7-Promotion-Appellants joined as clerks in Bank, later promoted as 
Accountants and again promoted as Assistant Managers-Bank taken over 
by Union of India-New Regulations and Promotion Policy framed-
Appel/ants placed in Junior Management cadre, scale-/ along with 
Accountants-New Regulations and Promotion Policy challenged in writ 
D petition before High Court-Single Judge upheld the challenged Regulation 
but struck down Promotion Policy-Division Bench in LPA upheld Promotion 
Policy as there was no arbitrariness or inequality-On appeal Held, 
Promotion Policy not discriminatory and no inte1ference called for. 
Promotion Policy-Clauses 5. I. 5. 5, 6. 2 and 7. I-Determination of 
E inter-se seniority-Held, Seniority before take over or tenure of service as 
Assistant Manager not wiped off-Due weightage given to services rendered. 
The appellants had joined the New Bank of India as clerks and were 
promoted as Accountants and further promoted and confirmed as Assistant 
Managers in the same pay scale, with the special allowance. While they were 
F working as such, the Bank was taken over by the Union of India under 
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 
and later on the New Bank of India (Officers Service) Regulation 1982 was 
framed along with a Promotion Policy. 
G 
As per clause 5.1 of the Promotion Policy the appellants were placed 
in the Junior Management Grade Scale I along with Accountants and their 
seniority was determined. They filed a writ petition challenging the validity 
of Regulation 7 and Clauses 5.1, 5.5, 6.2 and 7.1 of the Promotion Policy 
as being violative of Art, 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Single Judge upheld 
Regulation 7 which provided for categorisation and fitment of exi.5ting officers, 
H but struck down the impugned clauses of the Promotion Policy holding them 
388 
--r-
y~ 
--< 
""" 
...: 
• 
-. '.""'"" 
K.B. SHARMA v. U.0.1. 
389 
to be ultravires of Regulation 18(5) and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 A 
of the Constitution. 
The Division Bench in L.P.A. held that the Single Judge committed an 
error by holding that unequals had not been treated equally. It also held that 
there was no arbitrariness or inequality in the Promotion Policy. Hence, this 
appeal. 
The appellants contended that the very categorisation as per Regulation 
7 is invalid as it puts Accountants and Assistant Managers in one grade; the 
High Court was in error when it upheld the clauses of the Promotion Policy 
as prior to the take over, the appellants had been promoted and in any event 
they cannot be held to be junior to Accountants and be placed in the same 
grade; and that the seniority of the employees is being determined on 
continuous length of service; therefore unequals like Accountants and 
Assistant Managers are being treated equals which per se is hostile 
discrimination. 
The respondents contended that the expression "promotion", used in 
the orders, was not in fact a promotion from one cadre to the other; 
Accountants and Assistant Managers were in one grade scale, and as such 
unequals were not being treated equally; and that the Promotion Policy for 
determination of inter-se-seniority gave appropriate weightage for the services 
rendered as Assistant Manager/Manager and seniority is not determined on 
length of service. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Validity of Regulation 7 of New Bank of India (Officer's 
Service) Regulations, 1982 was upheld by Single Judge and appellants did 
not challenge the same by filing any appeal and as such the decision in that 
respect has reached finality and cannot be re-opened in an appeal against 
jndgment of the Division Bench where the only question was the validity of 
different clauses of the Promotion Policy. [393-D-E] 
2.1. A plain reading of the provisions of the Promotion Policy clearly 
demonstrates that neither the seniority of the appellants in the erstwhile 
Bank before the take over of the same nor their services as Assistant 
Manager assuming the same to be a promotion are being wiped off in any 
manner so as to hold the provisions ofthe Promotion Policy discriminatory. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On the other hand the provisions for determination of inter-se seniority H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.