K LAKSHMINARAYAN Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st petitioner K. Lakshminarayan joined the 1st respondent, Dena Bank, in the year 1961 as a clerk. The 2nd petitioner, Harshvardhan B. Vyas joined the same bank in the year 1964 also as a clerk. Both of them were promoted in Scale 1 of the Junior Management Grade effective from July 1, 1979 along with respondents 2 to 13. The first seniority list was published by the 1st respondent Bank in February 1981. In the said list the position of both the petitioners was correctly shown. Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 and petitioner No. 2 were shown as juniors to petitioner No. 1 and respondents 10 to 13 were shown as juniors to petitioner No. 2. The next seniority list was published in January 1985 which showed respondents 2 to 13 very much higher than the petitioners in the Scale II of the Middle Management Grade although respondents 2 to 13 were juniors to petitioners 1 and 2 and by this seniority list they were treated as senior. The petitioners, therefore, wrote a letter dated June 24, 1986 to the 1st respondent Bank making enquiries as to the basis and criteria on which promotions were given to respondents 2 to 13. They were orally informed that respondents 2 to 13 were promoted earlier than they by a resolution of the board of directors of the 1st respondent Bank passed in a meeting held on January 19, 1980, as they (respondents 2 to 13) were chartered accountants. The petitioners have challenged this action on the part of the 1st respondent Bank in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IN support of the petition Mr. Chopra submitted that shifting respondents 2 to 13 from Scale 1 of the Junior Management Grade to Scale II of the Middle Management Grade amounts to promotion of the said respondents which was in violation of the Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the said regulations") ignoring the claims of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners who were promoted afterwards be granted deemed promotion from the date on which the respondents 2 to 13 were promoted. In reply Mr. Talsania, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Bank canvassed that respondents 2 to 13 were not promoted as alleged by the petitioners but they were properly classified and put in a proper grade because they were chartered accountants and no injustice was done to the petitioners Mr. Talsania also urged that the writ petition suffers from laches and delay of about six years and on that ground also no relief can now be given to the petitioners.

(3.) WE shall first deal with the argument of Mr. Talsania that the petitioners should not be granted any relief in this writ petition because it was filed six years after the cause of action, if at all, accrued in favour of the petitioners. The submission of the learned Counsel is that respondents 2 to 13 admittedly according to the petitioners were promoted in accordance with the Boards resolution of January 1980 whereas the petition was filed in August 1986 and therefore the delay of six years could not be condoned and no relief be granted to the petitioners. In the alternative Mr. Talsania canvassed that at any rate the petitioners admittedly came to know about the concerned seniority list in the month of January 1985 from when also writ petition is filed after a delay of about 18 to 19 months which should not be condoned. In support of this argument Mr. Talsania relied upon a Supreme Court Judgement in the case of (P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu) A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 2271.