SHYAM BHANWARLAL SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri B.C. Jain and Shri U.K. Choukse have been heard on merits of this petition.

(2.) Petitioner filed this writ petition with the grievance that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not properly, correctly and legally implement the scheme of grades and categorisation of posts enunciated in Chapter II of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and on account of that the petitioner has been superseded by almost all Bank Officers who were below in gradation list which was prepared by the then New Bank of India which was merged into Punjab National Bank by the provisions of the Act. Shri B.C. Jain made reference in that context to 4 grades which were indicatedby Chapter II. Those four grades will have to be mentioned for the purpose of unfolding the matter for understanding:

(3.) Shri Choukse submitted that two employees of the Bank named Shri K.B. Sharma, Accountant and Shri D.K. Bhardwaj, Accountant had submitted representation to the Bank authority on February 4, 1979 and March 14, 1980 for the same sort of grievance and when their representations were turned down by the Competent Authority, they filed the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Single Bench). Shri Choukse submitted that when the matter was pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4223/1993 and by the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court, the judgment of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court which was in favour of Shri K.B. Sharma and Shri D.K. Bhardwaj, was set aside. Shri Choukse submitted that keeping in view the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the petition of the present petitioner will have to be dismissed. Shri Choukse pointed out that Shri Shyam Sharma had submitted a representation to the Competent Authority and when it was rejected, he preferred an appeal to the higher Competent Authority and that has also been rejected. Shri Choukse again submitted that the petitioner did not implead other subordinates as parties in this petition and, therefore, nothing can be done against them without hearing them.