TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as 'the 1975 Rules'. The 1975 Rules were not framed under the rule making power of the Government, as conferred by section 49 of the State Bank of India Act, but under section 43 of the Act, sub-section(1) of which provides that the State Bank may appoint such number of officers, advisers and employees as it considers necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions, and determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. Sub-section (2) of section 43 provides that the officers, advisers and employees of the State Bank shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may, by general special order, be entrusted or delegated to them by the Central Board. Although the Officers Grade-I were superior in 'rank to the Officers Grade-II, there was little difference in the pay scales of these two categories of officers. The duties, which were to be performed by Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II, were also similar in nature. Indeed, with the expansion of the: banking activities, a large number of Officers Grade-II were required, to perform managerial duties which normally were performed by Officers Grade-I. The Officers'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are relevant for our purpose are extracted below:- "1.(1)This order may be called State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979. (2) This order shall come into force on the 1st day of October 1979. 2. (1) This order shall apply to the existing officers of the Bank and 'to the officers of the Bank who are appointed or promoted to any of the grades mentioned in paragraph 4 and to such other employees of the Bank to whom it may be made applicable by the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the competent authority to the extent and subject to such conditions as it may decide. (2) It shall not apply, except to the extent specified by the Central Board or the Executive Committee or the competent authority, to an officer during his tenure of service outside India or to employees engaged in any country outside India and serving there. 3. In this order, unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context-- (a) "Appointed Date" means the 1st October 1979; ........................................................................................................ .............................................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any, in such new scale on the first day of the month in which he would have been eligible to draw increment in terms of the provisions in this behalf prior to the appointed date. (3) Where two or more officers having different seniority in the scales of pay immediately before the appointed date are fitted at the same stage in the new scale of pay, different months may be fixed for the eligibility of such officers for the next increment in the new scale of pay. (4) The mere fact that on the appointed date an officer happens to be posted in a post categorised as that of a grade or scale higher than the one in which he is placed in accordance with the provision of paragraph 7 will not by itself entitle that officer to any higher placement or fitment." The Order was actually made and published on 19th December, 1979. but in view of paragraph 1(2) it came into force on the first day of October, 1979. Under paragraph 2(1), it is inter alia provided that the Order shall apply to the existing officers of the Bank and to such employees of the Bank to whom it may be made applicable. Under paragraph 3(h), the expression "existing officers" has been defined as meaning all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d nothing else. In that view of the matter, the Allahabad High Court directed the Bank to prepare the seniority list of its officers in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Although it was not specifically directed that the Probationary/Trainee Officers should be placed above the officers in the erstwhile Grade-II in the seniority list, yet that would follow from the findings made by the High Court. On the other hand, the Delhi High Court took a contrary view and dismissed the writ petitions. Though according to the Allahabad High Court, the Probationary/Trainee Officers should be placed above the erstwhile officers in the Grade-II, according to the Delhi High Court they would be placed below the Officers in the Grade-II. Hence, these Appeals by the State Bank of India and the Special Leave Petition by the Probationary/Trainee Officers. Mr. Kacker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Probationary/Trainee Officers, has urged that the Allahabad High Court was justified in holding that the writ petitioners appointed as Probationary/Trainee Officers on 30/31-10-1979, should be considered as the existing officers within the meaning of paragraph 3(h) of the Order.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot in the service of the Bank immediately prior to the appointed date, that is, October 1, 1979. They cannot, therefore, be held to be the existing officers in the face of the definition of the expression in paragraph 3(h) of the Order. It is difficult to accept the contention of the Probationary/Trainee Officers that they were treated by the Bank as existing officers merely because they were fitted to the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and given a higher start at ₹ 960 p.m. It is incorrect to say that when an employee is fitted to a particular scale of pay of another cadre, he does not become a member of that cadre. In the instant case, the Probationary/Trainee Officers were placed in the corresponding scales of pay in the Junior Management Grade for the purpose of fitment in the new scales of pay. Indeed, as stated already, they were fitted to the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I at ₹ 960 p.m. It may be that such fitment has been made by the Bank following the principles as laid down in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order, presumably with a-view to removing any disparity between Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade II in the Junior Management Grade, but it will be diffi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative. On the contrary, the definition trader paragraph 3(h) is quite specific and points to only one class of officers, that is, the officers who were in the service of the Bank immediately prior to the appointed date and to whom any of the rules, as mentioned in that paragraph, are applicable. In our view, therefore, the Probationary/Trainee Officers appointed on 30/31-10-1979, that is, after the appointed date, are not existing officers. In this connection, we may notice the argument of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the Probationary/Trainee Officers, that the merger of Officers Grade-II and Grade-I into the Junior Management Grade was only for the purpose of fitment in the higher scale of pay and not for the purpose of seniority. It has been already stated that it was the demand of the Officers' Federation, representing both Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II, that the distinction between these two Grades should be abolished in every. respect and, ultimately, it was agreed that they would be placed in one grade, that is, the Junior Management Grade, having a higher scale of pay, subject to this that the Officers Grade-I will be above the Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de-II Officers, but the question is whether the Probationary\Trainee Officers are existing officers or not, that is to say, whether they were in the employment of the Bank immediately prior to October I, 1979. As the Probationary/Trainee Officers are not existing officers, they cannot claim seniority over the Officers Grade II, who are existing officers. It is next contended that the Bank had no authority to give retrospective operation to the Order with effect from October 1, 1979, inasmuch as section 43 of the State Bank of India Act under which the Order has been passed, does not authorise the Bank to pass any such Order with retrospective effect. It is now well settled that unless the statute, under which the rules are flamed by the rule making authority, does not specifically authorise the making of rules with retrospective effect, such authority cannot frame any rule with retrospective effect. (See Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin & Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 830; Income-Tax Officer, Alleppey v.M.C. Ponnoose & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 678; Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 1 SCR 896 and Regional Transport Officer,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being falsified or remaining to be fulfilled. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has also placed reliance upon the observation of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., in Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, [1986] Suppl. SCC 143. It has been observed by Mukharji, J that whether there has been denial of equality or any constitutional right infringed or not cannot be published where interests of large number of people are concerned, in judged the abstract. Further, it has been observed that in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees. Relying upon the above two decisions of this Court, it is submitted on behalf of the State Bank of India that in the instant case also a large number of employees, particularly the Officers Grade-II numbering about 15,000, have been benefitted. Indeed, justice has been done to these 15,000 employees as agreed to by the Officers' Federation of the Bank comprising both Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade II. Counsel submits that existing officers have been given the benefit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffer by 20th October, 1979 and be ready to join duty around 25th idem at the place to be intimated to you after completion of formalities, failing which the risk of change in the salary structure and other conditions will be yours." From the telex and telegraph messages, it is contended that they show that the Bank had decided to give effect to the Order with effect from 30/31-10-1979. We are unable to accept this contention. There is no indication in the telex or telegram that the Order will be given effect to from October 30/31, 1979. The telegram really mentions that if the petitioners join after implementation of the recommendations of the Pillai Committee, they will be governed by the revised terms of service and salary scales. Indeed, it has been already noticed that after the appointment of the Probationary/Trainee Officers on 30/31-10-1979, they were fitted to the Junior Management Grade: Scale-I and given a higher start at ₹ 960 p.m. The telex and the telegram to which our attention has been drawn, do not seem to be of any consequence to the Probationary/Trainee Officers and does not at all support their contention that the Order was intended to be given effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officers' Federation that there should not be any distinction in the status of Officers Grade-I and Officers Grade-II. It was urged that such distinction should be abolished and both these categories of officers should be placed in one category so that they have the same status and position. The State Bank of India accepted the demand of the Officers' Federation and the distinction has been removed. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the Probationary/Trainee Officers being Officers Grade-I, are of the same status and position as the Officers Grade-II. Admittedly, the erstwhile Officers Grade-II were appointed much earlier than the Probationary/Trainee Officers, who were the writ petitioners in the High Courts. Although they had to perform almost the same duty and there was no difference between their positions, they had to suffer an artificial distinction and placed below the Officers Grade-I, who were considered to be superior in rank to the Officers Grade-II. After the Bank had decided that both these two categories of officers were same in status and position and such decision having been implemented, we are afraid, it is difficult to accept the contention made ....