R K BAGGA Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an officer in State Bank of India challenges the order issued by the Chief General Manager posting him from the post of Manager (Mechanization) in the cadre of Senior Manager Grade Scale IV (SMGS-IV) as Branch Manager Ambala City. The grievance is that Manager (Mechanization) is higher post and order of transfer to Branch Manager constituted a reversion. The contention in defence is that he always belonged only to the lower post as SMGS-IV and later upgrading of the post of Manager (Mechanization) did not entitle the petitioner to be retained in the same post and therefore, when he was transferred to the post of Branch Manager, which was in the cadre of SMGS-IV, he suffered no reversion.

(2.) The matter has to be seen in the context of how the appointment in the latter posting has been done to the petitioner. When the petitioner was an officer in the cadre of SMGS-IV at Chandigarh, Local Head Office, he had been posted as Manager (Mechanization) at the same office on 27.2.1989. Subsequently, the Personnel Department had reviewed the categorisation of posts and postings as on 01.01.1988 and issued a list of SMGS-V as on 01.01.1988 at the administrative office. This included one post of the Manager (Mechanization) and it was categorized in the post of SMGS-V on 02.05.1989. The petitioner, who was occupying the post of Manager (Mechanization) came therefore, to occupy a post which was subsequently upgraded. When he was transferred as a Branch Manager subsequently by the impugned order on 27.09.1989, he was going back to grade IV. The explanation by the management justifying its decision is that although Manager (Mechanization) post had been upgraded, so long as he was retained in the said post, he was being paid only an ad hoc allowance for officiating in the upgraded post and when there again fell vacancy at Ambala in Category IV, he was transferred to the category that he belonged to. While the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that his posting as Manager (Mechanization) was a permanent post and therefore, an upgradation automatically meant also a promotion in a permanent post and not merely in the capacity as officiating officer, the management would contend that the fact that higher allowances were given as a temporary measure was itself a proof that he was not meant to be taken as promoted when the post was upgraded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent refers me to the decision in P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1983 AIR(SC) 1060 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that promotion on acting basis as District Education Officer but on the same pay as before promotion would not afford to the person holding a post on acting basis to claim salary of promotion post. This decision has no application in a case where admittedly the post was upgraded. The petitioner was being paid the additional allowance for the post.