P.J. THOMAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing O.P. 725 of 1971, on the ground of delay and laches. The two writ petitioners were employees under the Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. They will be referred to in this judgment as petitioners. The Ist petitioner joined the Bank on 2 -1 -1954 and was an 'Agent' in one of the 'Branches' of the Bank, from 1 -3 -1955 to 16 -6 -1961. He is a graduate of the Madras University, was a J.C.O., and claims to be well -qualified for preferment and promotion. The 2nd petitioner, likewise, was 'Agent' from 1 -2 -1947 to 30 -5 -1960. He was transferred to the Central office of the Bank and was working there till 17 -6 -1971. He had studied upto B.A. class, although not taken the degree, and has experience in banking. In pursuance of Ext. P1 Scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank, under Section 45, Clause (4), Sub -clause (4) of the Banking Regulation Act 1942, and sanctioned by the Government of India, under Section 45, (7) of the Act, the Kottayam Orient Bank was to be amalgamated with the State Bank of Trayancore. Under Clause (13)of the Scheme, the Employees of the Transferor Bank, other than those specified in the Schedule were to continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed in the Transferee Bank at the same remuneration, and on the same terms and conditions, as were applicable to such employees before 18 -12 -1960. Under Clause (15), the Transferee Bank was, on the expiry of a period, not longer than three years from the sanctioning of the Scheme, to grant the employees of the transferor Bank the same remuneration and the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of the corresponding rank or status of the transferee Bank, subject to the qualifications and experience of the said employees of the transferor Bank being the same as, or equivalent to, all such other employees of the transferee Bank. Under Clause (19), doubts in regard to the interpretation of the provisions of the Scheme are to be referred to the Reserve Bank of India, whose opinion shall be conclusive and binding on both the transferee and the transferor Banks.

(2.) THE petitioners and other employees of the Kottayam Orient Bank were absorbed in the State Bank of Travancore, the transferee Bank, on and from 16 -5 -1961 under Clause (15) of the Scheme. There was an outer limit of three years for granting to them, the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to employees of the corresponding rank or status in the transferee Bank. The material date for purpose of Clause (15) was fixed as 1 -7 -1963. The petitioners claimed fitment in the appropriate cadre in the transferee Bank. But they were aggrieved, as their designation was converted to that of clerks in the transferee Bank, and also because, persons with inferior qualifications than they, were allowed to hold posts of officers in the transfer -e -Bank. This latter, according to them, amounted to discrimination. Although this was pleaded, at the stage of the argument, Sri Hardyal Hardy who appeared for the appellants conceded that he cannot usefully urge the case of discrimination.

(3.) THE defence to the petition was mainly that the petitioners had been barred by delay and laches. In addition to these, it was pleaded that by their conduct they had abandoned the relief claimed or at least brought about such a change of situation and circumstances, as to render it inequitable and inappropriate to grant them relief under Article 226. The pleas found favour with the learned single Judge.