Service reorganisation and seniority: later appointees were not existing officers and could not claim cadre seniority.

Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed after the appointed date under the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 were not "existing officers" because that term covered only officers in service immediately before the appointed date. Their later fitment in Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and higher starting pay did not alter that position, so they could not claim seniority over erstwhile Officers Grade-II. The Order was also not impermissibly retrospective, as it operated from the appointed date only to reorganise the covered cadre and fix inter se seniority among those within it; no vested right of seniority of the later appointees was infringed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed after the appointed date could be treated as "existing officers" for the purpose of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 and claim seniority over erstwhile Officers Grade-II; (ii) Whether the Order was impermissibly retrospective or took away any vested right of seniority of the Probationary/Trainee Officers.

Issue (i): Whether Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed after the appointed date could be treated as "existing officers" for the purpose of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 and claim seniority over erstwhile Officers Grade-II.

Analysis: The expression "existing officers" was defined to mean officers in the service of the Bank immediately prior to the appointed date. The Probationary/Trainee Officers were appointed only on 30/31 October 1979, after the appointed date of 1 October 1979, and therefore did not fall within that definition. Their fitment in Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and receipt of a higher starting pay did not make them existing officers. The definition was held to be clear and not repugnant to the placement and fitment provisions of the Order.

Conclusion: The Probationary/Trainee Officers were not existing officers and could not claim seniority over the erstwhile Officers Grade-II.

Issue (ii): Whether the Order was impermissibly retrospective or took away any vested right of seniority of the Probationary/Trainee Officers.

Analysis: The Order was given effect from the appointed date only for the purpose of reorganising the existing officers into the new cadre and fixing their inter se seniority. The Probationary/Trainee Officers, not being within that cadre on the appointed date, could not complain of retrospective deprivation of seniority in respect of a cadre to which they did not belong. Their chance of promotion was not shown to have been prejudiced, and the Bank's action was not treated as an unlawful retrospective rule-making exercise.

Conclusion: The Order was not invalid on the ground of retrospectivity, and no vested right of seniority of the Probationary/Trainee Officers was infringed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the seniority arrangement failed, the Allahabad High Court's view was rejected, and the contrary view sustaining the Bank's seniority scheme prevailed.

Ratio Decidendi: A service reorganisation taking effect from an appointed date applies only to those who answer the definition of the covered class on that date, and persons appointed thereafter cannot claim seniority within that class merely because they were later fitted into the new pay structure.

---