INDERJIT SAHDEV Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the orders Ex. 11 and 14 and all consequential orders may be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from affecting any recovery from the salary of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be deemed to have been confirmed on the post w.e.f. 1.6.1979 as a Branch Manager and his salary should be fixed accordingly and he may be given all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Branch Manager by the order dated 26.5.1979 on probation w.e.f. 1.12.1979 vide Anx. 1 During the probation, petitioner was ordered to draw officiating allowance of Rs. 60/ - per month and he was entitled to reimburse actual expenses incurred by him towards entertainment and conveyance for bank business upto a maximum limit of Rs. 25/ - and Rs. 50/ - per month respectively. It is also submitted that in fact petitioner was working as a Branch Manager prior to passing of the order Anx. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner was confirmed as a Branch Manager w.e.f. 1.7.1979 by the order dated 22.6.1979 Anx. 2. It is submitted that the period of probation of the petitioner was over soon after the expiry of the six months and he was entitled to be confirmed w.e.f. 1.6.1979 as neither his period of probation was extended nor his performance was found wanting on the post. But instead of that the respondent has confirmed the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1979. It is submitted that after the confirmation of Branch Manager, petitioner insisted that his salary should be revised according to the service regulation of Branch Manager, petitioner insisted that his salary should be revised according to the service regulation as then existing. In pursuance to the same the petitioner was informed by the communication dated 19.9.1979 that since the Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1979) have come into force w.ej. 1.7.1979, therefore, it is not possible to consider his case for revision of salary on confirmation as a Branch Manager. It is also informed that the petitioner will not get any officiating allowance after his confirmation on the post of Branch Manager. It is also alleged by the petitioner that it is misconception on the part of the respondents not to have counted officiating allowance for the purpose of fixation. The petitioner further made a representation and that too was without any result, therefore, ultimately petitioner came to file this writ petition for his fixation and confirmation.

(3.) MR . Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner's period of probation of six months expired on 1.6.1979, therefore, he is entitled to his confirmation from 1.64979 and his salary should have been fixed up first in the old pay -scale rules and thereafter his salary should have been fixed in terms of the regulations of 1979.