STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE versus ELIAS ELIAS & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 04-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

28 
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCOJU; 
v. 
ELIAS. ELIAS & ORS. 
September 4, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Banking Regulation Act (10 of 1949), s. 45(5)(1)-Clause (ii) of 
the .first proviso-Scope of-Second proviso--Finality of decision oj 
Reserve Bank-Extends to what matters. 
The respondent was doing the duties of a civil agent in a Bank. His 
duties were those of clerk and the salary paid to him was that of a 
clerk. 
Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation prepared by the Reserve 
Bank under s. 45(4)(d)(ii) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the 
Bank was amalgamated with the State Bank of Travancore. The respon-
dent was admitted as an employee of the State Bank and was allotted 
the duties of a 'civil agent'. 
But the State Bank directed that 'civil. 
agents should be treated as 'subordinate staff consisting of peons, watch-
men and sweepers, whose scale of remuneration was very ml,Jth lower 
than that of the clerical staff. He sub111itted representations to the autho-
rities which were rejected. 
The Reselrve Bank of ·India, to which the 
matter was referred under s. 45 ( 5) of the Act, held that the State Bank 
was justified in placing the respondent in the subordinate cadre whicb 
was a residual cadre in the State Bank. 
On the question : ( 1 ) Whether the decision of the Reserve Bank was 
final and binding under the second proviso to s. 45(5)(i); and (2) 
Whether the terms and conditions of the respondent's 5ervice were not 
affected by the classification of his post in the subordinate cadre, 
B 
c 
E 
HELD : ( !) The decision of the Reserve Bank whether the qual111-
cations and experience of any of the employees of a transferor bank are 
the same as or equivalent to the quallflcatlo111 and ex~ence of emplayeea 
of cormpondin1 rank or status ot a transferee ban 
11 declared final by 
the second proviso to 1. 45(5) (I) of the Act. But nallty 11 not attached 
p 
to any other m'tte'r. 
In the preunt cue, however, the Reurve Bank. 
purportod to determine that the rank and 1tatu1 of civil 11ent1 worklna 
In the orlalnnl Bank cormponded with the rank and 1tatu1 of the 1u~ 
ordinate cadre under the State Bank. 
That wa1 a matter which could 
not be referred to the Rescrv~ Bank and. lt1 decl1ion thereon w11 not 
final. [32 C-D; 33 A·Dl 
(2) Under cl. (ii) of the proviso to s. '15(5)(1), 
a tran1feree 
bank must grant the same remuneration and same terms alld condltloru 
of service as are applicable to employees of corresponding rank or status 
of the transferee bank subject to the qualifications and experience of the 
employee being the same as or equivalent to those of such other em-
ployees of the transferee bank. 
That is, a person performing certain 
duties in a t'ransferor bank when admitted into the service of the trans-
fere~ bank must be fitted in a cadre which is equivalent in status. and 
rank with the status and rank of the employees in the transferor bank. 
In grading him into the cadre of equivalent status and. rank, experience 
and qualifications may be taken into account, but, the rank and stat"' 
enjoyed by him in the transferor bank cannot be ignored. 
[33 F.JI; 
34 A-DJ 
G 
H 
.A 
c 
0 
·11 
·G 
:H 
STATE BANK v. ELIAS (Shah, J.) 
29 
In the present case, it was c6nccded that the respondent satisfied the 
conditions as. to rank, status and qualifications of a clerk in the State Bank 
and it. was only contendt".d_ that he did not hav·e the, requisite experience 
On the ground of lack of experience the respondent could not be deprived 
of his rank and status in !he transferee Bank. 
Also. the decision of th;.: 
Reserve Bank that the sllbordinate cadre was a residual cadre is not sup-
ported by any evidence. _ Therefore, it \Vas not· open to the State Bank 
to fit the respondent, who was performing the duties of a clerk in the 
original b~nk, into a subdrdinate cadre manned by employees perform-
ing duties, which are not clerical, \;ut of peons and the like. [33 D-F; 
34 Dl 
. 
C1v1L AP.PELLA TE ~uRJsDICT10N .: Civil Appea: No. 1720 of 
1968. 
. 
: 
~I 
. 
Appeal by special leave from .the judgment and order dated 
November 2, 1967 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 
64 of 1966. 
· 
'-.._ 
M. C. Chagla, P. C. Bhartari iind J. B. D'adachanji, for the 
appellant. 
K. Jayaram, for respondent No._ 1. 
/ 
Nire11 De, Attorney General and I. N. Shroff •. for respondent 
No. 2. 
J".he Judgment of the Court was ~elivered by 
Shah, J, 
K. E. Elias-first respondent herein-was an em-
.ployee of the O

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