SHANKER LAL Vs. PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 11th September, 1998 of the respondents refusing to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion under the clerical grade. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion against existing vacancies which comes within the 60 posts as notified vide letter dated 4th July, 1998.

(2.) THE respondent-Bank namely Punjab and Sind Bank is a nationalized bank under the Government of India undertaking. The petitioner passed High School examination conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The petitioner is a member of scheduled caste and is entitled for the benefits as applicable in that regard. Petitioner was initially appointed temporary peon in the employment of the Bank on 2nd May, 1983. From 1983 to 1989, the petitioner was permitted to work without any break. Under the agreement arrived between the Bank Management and Staff Association a decision was taken to regularize the service of temporary employees who have completed 240 days in calendar year from 1. 1. 1982 to 31. 12. 1989. For that purposes a list of candidate with length of service was prepared by the respondents in which the petitioner's name finds place at Serial No. 9 of the list. In spite of the aforesaid fact, the interview letter was not issued to the petitioner for the purposes of regularisation. When the petitioner was posted in branch office at Allahabad. , the Branch Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad forwarded the letter on 20. 1. 1995 informing the General Manager that interview letter has not been issued to the petitioner, although he has been recommended for regularization. Thereafter, an interview letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 15. 9. 1995. Petitioner was found suitable and was accordingly issued an appointment letter dated 15. 9. 1995 with a direction to report through the office of Branch Manager Gaipura. The petitioner has continuously working in the employment of the Bank as detailed above since 1983. The Staff Circular dated 20th February, 1993 was issued by the Personnel Department of the bank was circulated to all the branches informing the policy of promotion to clerical staff. For the purposes of filling up of 60 vacancies of clerical cadre in accordance with the promotion policy, the head office issued a circular dated 4th July, 1998. It was provided that member of subordinate staff who has passed metric or equivalent examination and having four years of satisfactory service, will be eligible to be considered for promotion. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for being considered for promotion under the policy, submitted a complete application in a prescribed proforma in time. The same was forwarded by the Manager of the Branch.

(3.) THE head office vide its letter dated llth August, 1998, address to the Branch Manager, Gaipura, raised certain queries with regard to the candidature of the petitioner specifically relating to the joining of the petitioner. According to the bank, the joining of the petitioner was 4. 11. 1995 and the Branch Manager was required to clarify the position in that regard. The Branch Manager vide its letter dated 25. 8. 1998 informed the head office that the petitioner has joined at Gaipura Branch on 4. 11. 1995 and prior to that petitioner had worked at Civil Lines, Allahabad and details in that regard is to be verified from the records of Branch Office Civil Lines, Allahabad. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid fact, a fax message to that effect was sent by the petitioner to the Head Office stating therein that petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and his claim may be considered for promotion. It appears that without verifying the records from the branch office of Punjab and Sind Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad, where the petitioner had worked between 1983 to 1995, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for being considered for promotion on a misconceived ground treating the petitioner that he has joined the service on 4. 11. 1995 and as such, the petitioner does not complete the eligible criteria of four years satisfactory service in terms of the promotion policy.