CANARA BANK Vs. V K GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue that is involved in the present appeal is whether or not the respondent is entitled to stagnation increment as envisaged in the Fifth bipartite Settlement dated 10th April, 1989.

(2.) THE respondent was appointed in the erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited as clerk on 4th September, 1972. He was promoted as Head Clerk on 11th November, 1980 and then as Special Assistant on 11th November, 1981. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted to the Officer cadre on 7th January, 1983. Subsequent thereto, the erstwhile Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited was merged with the appellant-Canara Bank with effect from 24th August, 1985 in terms of an amalgamation scheme framed by the Central Government in consultation with the reserve Bank of India. Consequently, effective from 24th August, 1985 the respondent became an officer employee of the appellant-bank. The respondent after the aforesaid amalgamation was transferred to Sikanderabad Branch of the appellant-bank on 10th September, 1986 not only in terms of the transfer policy of the Bank but also in tune with the RBI Guidelines for giving rotation in posting from time to time and also on the ground of administrative exigencies. The respondent, however, did not join Sikanderabad Branch and made all efforts to get the transfer order cancelled or modified for being posted to Delhi. Even after a long lapse of time when he did not join Sikanderabad Branch, some other officer was posted to that Branch. Respondent was thereafter transferred to vishakhapatnam Branch in 1988 when he again made a representation dated 30th may, 1988 for his retention at Delhi due to his family circumstances. The appellant-bank expressed their inability to accept the aforesaid request under letter dated 14th June, 1988 stating that the respondent has been working in the cadre of employment which extends to all over the country and, therefore, has all-India transfer liability due to which the appellant-bank was unable to consider his retention at Delhi. Thereafter the respondent made another representation on 30th November, 1988 requesting to revert him back to the workman cadre and for his retention at Delhi due to his family circumstances. The appellant-bank, as per the guidelines formulated and as a matter of policy decision, offered him the terms and conditions on which his request for retention could be considered. Respondent agreed to the aforesaid terms and conditions under letter dated 3rd January, 1989 voluntarily and without raising any protest. The competent authority of the appellant-bank therefore permitted him to get himself reverted back to the clerical cadre under proceeding dated 3rd February, 1989 and a communication to that effect was issued by the appellant-bank. On 25th November, 1992 the respondent submitted a letter to the appellant-bank praying for release of stagnation increment in terms of the policy decision of the appellant, particularly by making reference to the following conditions:

(3.) IN the meantime however by letter issued on 21st January, 1993 the appellant-bank rejected the claim of the respondent stating that since the respondent on his own will got himself reverted to clerical cadre with effect from 10th february, 1989, as per Head Office guidelines, he would not be eligible to get any stagnation increment.