Partly allowed

Shivji S.Juvekar v. State Bank of India

Bombay HC1 Mar 2019WP/1450/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the denial of career progression to drivers of State Bank of India. The Court accepted the Bank's affidavit stating promotion policies existed, directed the Bank to consider specific cases for promotion under existing rules, and dismissed claims for general scheme formulation or overtime pay.

What did the court decide?

Court accepted bank affidavits and directed the bank to consider the cases of petitioners appearing in Exhibit-A for promotion under existing policy within three months.

Shivji S.Juvekar Vs State Bank of India — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

oswp1450.doc

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.1450 OF 2002

¶6

Shivji Sakharam Juvekar ...Petitioner
vs.
State Bank of India...Respondent

¶7

Mr.K.P.Anilkumar for the Petitioner
Mr.Harihar Bhave a/w Ms Rupa Bhave and Ms Divya
Menon and Mr.C.D.Lonkar I/b Bhave and Company for
the respondent

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND SANDEEP K. SHINDE,JJ.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED:DECEMBER 18, 2018
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED:MARCH 1, 2019

¶9

JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶10

1The petitioner who was working as driver with
the respondent-State Bank of India has filed this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for himself and on behalf of 48 similarly
placed employees of the State Bank of India. The
case of the petitioner and others in short is that
he himself and 48 others whose name appears in
Exhibit-A (for short “the petitioner and others”)
have been deprived of benefit of career progression
by way of promotion or by upgradation of pay scale.
The respondent-State Bank of India has been
constituted under the State Bank of India Act,1955.
It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 and
thus is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

oswp1450.doc

¶12

¶13

2The case of the petitioner and others is that
they being the Drivers are class-IV employees of the
said bank. It is pointed out that there are various
other categories of employees of the bank who are
employees appointed for doing miscellaneous work
like maintenance of Air Conditioners, maintenance of
electrical appliances, sweeping etc. The contention
of the petitioner and others is that other employees
belonging to Class-IV are entitled to various
benefits such as time bound promotion. It is pointed
out that the petitioner and others are also having
duty for eight hours on par with other Class-IV
employees but they are deprived of benefit of
upgradation or promotion. It is pointed out that
though the duty hours of the petitioner and others
are restricted eight hours, every day they are
required to work 12 to 15 hours without getting
adequate compensation for the additional time spent
on duty.

¶14

3The case made out by the petitioner and others
is that they have completed more than 10 years in
service. They have never been given any
upgradation. In service jurisprudance, it is a
matter of right for the employees to have career
progression. It is contended that the respondent-
State Bank of India has indulged in discrimination
as a result of which a grave prejudice is caused to
the petitioner and others. The petitioner and
others are relying upon several representations made

¶15

3 oswp1450.doc

¶16

from time to time, the copies of which have been
annexed as Exhibit-B (collectively). The petitioner
is relying upon the Judgment and Order dated 2nd July
1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.43 of 1993 (R.A.More and others vs.
State Bank of India and others) It is submitted that
the petitioners in the said Writ Petition were also
similarly placed in the sense that the said bank did
not provide any career progression to them. It is
contended that the Division Bench directed the
respondent-State Bank of India to frame the
scheme/procedure for career upgradation of the
petitioner.

¶17

4The first prayer in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a
writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State Bank
of India to immediately frame the Rules and
Regulations for career upgradation of the petitioner
and others. The second prayer is for issuing a writ
of mandamus enjoining the respondent-Bank to give to
the petitioner and others benefits which were
extended to similarly placed employees (electrical
maintenance staff). The third and last substantive
prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus enjoining
the respondent-bank to give overtime benefit to the
petitioner and others.

¶18

5The respondent-Bank has filed an affidavit-in-
reply of Shri Nagendra Kumar Malviya, the Assistant
General Manager. It is contended in the affidavit

¶19

¶20

oswp1450.doc

¶21

that the workmen staff in the respondent-Bank is
governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award and the
Bipartite Settlements signed between the Bank and
All India SBI Staff Federation, a recognised union
of workmen staff. The contention of the respondent
bank is that the Drivers and other categories
belonging to subordinate categories have pay scale
of Rs.4060/- to Rs.7060/- plus Dearness Allowance
plus House Rent Allowance etc. It is contended that
considering the nature of work performed by the
staff, they are given special allowance as set out
in Annexure-A to the affidavit which ranges from
Rs.140/- to Rs.1450/- per month. It is contended
that the Drivers employed by the respondent-Bank are
paid special allowance of Rs.932/- from the date of
joining the service.

¶22

6It is pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply
that a Committee was formed to examine the policy
for career progression of employees in the
respondent-Bank. Based on the recommendation of the
said Committee, a policy was formulated. In terms of
the said policy, settlement was entered into with
Staff Federation on 12th April 1999 which was
circulated to all branches. The settlement dated
12th April 1999 was subsequently modified by a
settlement dated 22nd July 2003. As regards the
career progression, in paragraphs V to VIII to the
reply, it is stated thus:

¶23

“V.I say that in regard to subordinate

¶24

¶25

oswp1450.doc

¶26

staff, it was decided that all full-time
employees in the subordinate cadre with 15
completed years of service and not drawing
any special allowance or drawing an allowance
less that Rs.474/- per month will be
appointed to higher positions within the
subordinate cadre such as Head Messenger,
Head Armed Guard, Head Sweeper etc and paid a
special allowance of Rs.474/- per month.

¶27

VI.I say that further completion of 23
years of full-time service within the cadre
as on 1st April every year, the members of
all categories of subordinate staff will be
appointed to positions such as Senior Head
Messenger, Senior Head Armed Guard, Senior
Head Sweeper etc and paid a special allowance
of Rs.932/- per month.

¶28

VII. I submit that the drivers to which
category the petitioners belong are already
in receipt of a special pay of Rs.932/- per
month from the date of their joining and as
such draw a special allowance equivalent to
the allowance paid to other employees after
they have put in 23 years of service.

¶29

VIII.I say and submit that the drivers can
also become Head Driver in terms of the
Bank's guidelines and draw a special
allowance of Rs.991/- per month from the date

¶30

6 oswp1450.doc

¶31

of their appointment as Head Driver. The Head
Drivers are appointed at those places where
the strength of drivers is more than three.
I say that Additional Head Drivers may be
appointed if the strength is 20 or more
ensuring that there should not be more than
one Head Driver for each group subject to a
maximumofthreeDriversatan
establishment.”

¶32

7 In paragraph 7 of the reply, it is stated
that the Drivers employed by the respondent are
eligible for promotion to clerical cadre subject to
they acquiring educational qualification of VIII
standard. In such a case the Driver must be working
for eight years and must pass selection procedure.
The case of the Drivers is considered for promotion
to Clerical Cadre after 5 years of service if they
pass matriculation examination.It is contended that
the petitioner is eligible for promotion as per the
rules.

¶33

8There is an additional affidavit in reply filed
by the respondent-bank. The additional reply is of
Shri Siddharth Trivedi, the Assistant General
Manager (O.A.D.). It is contended that the
petitioner and others belong to category of workmen
who are covered by the provisions of Industrial
Dispute Act,1957 therefore, they have an efficacious
remedy under the statute. A reliance placed on a
letter dated 21st December 2009 issued to the

¶34

7 oswp1450.doc

¶35

petitioner offering him appointment as Head
Driver/Head Messenger and by a letter dated 1st
January 2010, the petitioner accepted the same.
Reliance is placed on review promotion policy dated
6th May 2008 which is annexed to the affidavit which
includes a policy for grant of promotion for
subordinate to clerical cadre.

¶36

9There is one more affidavit filed by the
respondent-Bank of Shri Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi,
Assistant General Manager. It is dated 18th July 2018
in which a similar objection is raised regarding the
availability of a remedy based on applicability is
under the Industrial Dispute Act,1947. Reliance is
placed on page 86 of H.R.Handbook volume-II.
Relevant portion of the said Handbook reads thus:

¶37

“On completion of 15 years in the cadre, the
drivers cum messenger will be promoted as
“Senior Drivers” and will be paid special pay
as admissible.”

¶38

“On completion of 23 years of service in the
cadre, the driver cum messenger will be
promoted as “Senior Head Driver” and will be
paid special pay as admissible.”

¶39

10The learned counsel for the petitioner has
taken us through the averments made in the petition,
the annexure to the petition and affidavits in
reply. He submitted that the petitioner and others

¶40

oswp1450.doc

¶41

¶42

though they have completed 10 to 15 years of service
are even denied benefit of promotion or career
progression. He pointed out various grievances made
in the petition and urged that the benefit of career
progression should be extended to the petitioner and
others. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank
has invited our attention to various affidavits and
submitted that benefit of career progression is
available to the petitioner and others and in fact
the petitioner has been promoted in the year 2010.

¶43

11The learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar and others1 and the
Council of Scientific Industrial Research and
another vs. K.G.S.Bhatt and another2.

¶44

12We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. We have perused the pleadings on record
as well as the documents produced along with the
pleadings.

¶45

13We have perused the decisions of the Apex Court
relied upon by the petitioner. In the case of Raghu
Prasad Singh, the Apex Court held that reasonable
promotional opportunities should be made available
in every wing of public service. In absence of
promotional prospects, the service is bound to de-

¶46

1 AIR 1988 SC 1033

¶47

2 AIR 1989 SC 1972

¶48

oswp1450.doc

¶49

¶50

generate and stagnation kills the desire to serve
properly. In the case of the Council for Scientific
Research (supra), it was held that when a public or
a private organization recruits a person, he must be
given an opportunity to make advancement in the
career.

¶51

14In the affidavits filed by the respondent-Bank
and in particular a copy of HR Handbook of the
respondent, it is stated that on completion of 15
years in the cadre of Drivers/Messengers the
employees will be promoted as Senior Drivers and
will be paid special pay as admissible. It is
stated that on completion of 23 years of service in
the cadre, the Drivers/Messengers will be promoted
as Senior Head Drivers and will be paid special pay
as admissible. A statement on oath to that effect is
made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Shri
Mahendra Singh Raghuvanshi dated 18th July 2018.
Thus, the policy of grant of career progression is
in place. As regards overtime, a stand taken in the
additional affidavit and in particular affidavit
dated 20th November 2013 that the Drivers are
entitled to special allowance upto Rs.1480/- per
month from the date of joining. This takes care of
the grievance of non payment of remuneration for
overtime.

¶52

15As far as the petitioner is concerned, on 21st
December 2009, he has been appointed as a Head
Driver/Head Messenger and he has accepted the said

¶53

oswp1450.doc

¶54

¶55

appointment. However, from the affidavit it is not
clear whether other 48 persons whose names appear in
the Exhibit-A were considered for promotion in terms
of what is stated in the HR Handbook which is quoted
in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Shri Mahendra
Singh Raghuvanshi, Assistant General Manager. There
cases will have to be considered for grant of
promotion.

¶56

16Hence, a very limited relief deserves to be
granted in this petition and we dispose of the
petition by passing the following order:

¶57

(I) We accept the statements made on oath by the
respondent-Bank in all the three affidavits filed on
record as the statements and assurances of the
respondent-State Bank of India;

¶58

(II) We direct the respondent-State Bank of India to
consider the cases of the persons whose names appear
at Exhibit-A for grant of promotion in terms of the
policy incorporated on page 86 of HR Hand Book of
staff members and in terms of what is stated in
paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Mr.M.Raghu dated
18th July 2018;

¶59

(III) If their cases are already considered,
necessary decision taken shall be communicated to
the said persons;

¶60

(IV) If their cases are yet to be considered in
terms of the aforesaid policy, the same shall be
considered within a period of three months from the
date on which this order is uploaded. The decision

¶61

11 oswp1450.doc

¶62

taken shall be communicated to the concerned staff
members;

¶63

(V) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms with no order as to costs.

¶64

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Shivji S.Juvekar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivji S.Juvekar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Santosh Machhindra Thite Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue , Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Rachana Vilas Natu Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Addl. Chief Secretary, (Services) Gen. Admin. Dept. and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dipak Prasadsing Thapa and Anr.

Smt. Girija Suresh Borade and Anr. Vs Union of India through General Manager and Ors.

Sudhakar v. Samant Vs the Chairman and MD Union Bank of India and 2 Ors.

K.K. Balasubramaniam Vs the Union Bank of India and 3 Ors.