Dismissed

G. Subrahmanyam, v. Manjeera Grameena Bank

Telangana HC2 Dec 2010WP/6874/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed four writ petitions filed by bank employees challenging a pay scale reduction. The Court held that upon re-promotion, petitioners were treated afresh as they could not claim increments accrued during their earlier, set-aside promotion period. Consequently, the reduction to the fresh pay scale for the post was legal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.

G. Subrahmanyam, Vs Manjeera Grameena Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE 2^nd DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.6881, 6878, 6352 and 6874 OF 2000

¶6

Writ Petition No.6881 of 2000: Between: P.Sambasiva Rao

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And Manjira Grameena Bank, Sangareddy, Rep. By its Chairman. … Respondents Writ Petition No.6878 of 2000: Between: B.Srinivas … Petitioner And Manjira Grameena Bank, Sangareddy, Rep. By its Chairman. … Respondents Writ Petition No.6352 of 2000: Between: G.Ravi Kumar … Petitioner And Manjira Grameena Bank, Sangareddy, Rep. By its Chairman. … Respondents Writ Petition No.6874 of 2000: Between: G.Subramanyam … Petitioner And Manjira Grameena Bank, Sangareddy, Rep. By its Chairman. … Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION Nos.6352, 6874, 6878 and 6881 OF 2000

¶12

COMMON ORDER: -

¶13

All these four writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, since one and the same issue arise for consideration in all the writ petitions.

¶14

Facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6352, 6874, 6878 and 6881 of 2000 were appointed as clerkcum-cashiers in the respondent-Bank, on 14.05.1984, 18.04.1983, 14.05.1984 and 02.05.1983 respectively. All the petitioners were promoted to the post of Field Supervisors after they were interviewed and selected by the Selection Committee on 12.01.1991, by proceedings dated 15.01.1991. Questioning the promotion of the petitioners one B.Madhu and four others filed W.P.No.494 of 1991. This Court by order, dated 14.03.1995, allowed the writ petition setting aside the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Filed Supervisors and with a direction to make fresh promotion within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the said order, the Management filed W.A.No.343 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 30.12.1998, dismissed the Writ Appeal confirming the judgment of the Single Judge and directed that till fresh selections are made, status quo as to the position held by the promotee officers, who are respondents in the said writ petition/petitioners herein, shall be maintained. Therefore, all the

¶15

petitioners continued as Field Supervisors till the selection to the said post is made in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.494 of 1991. Later, the respondent-Bank issued a circular calling upon the petitioners and others to appear for the interview to be conducted by the Selection Committee on 12.04.1999 for filling up the post of Field Supervisors and the petitioners, who are selected earlier, were promoted once again as Field Supervisors with effect from 07.05.1999. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.6352, 6874 and 6881 of 2000 were drawing basic pay of Rs.3,060/- per month in the month of May, 1999 in the cadre of Field Supervisors and the same has been reduced to Rs.2,940/- per month in the month of June, 1999 and the petitioner in W.P.No.6878 of 2000 was drawing basic pay of Rs.3,180/per month in the month of May, 1999 and the same has been reduced to Rs.2,940/- per month in the month of June, 1999. On reduction of the basic pay, the petitioners made a representation to protect their salary, which has been rejected under the impugned proceedings.

¶16

Questioning the same, the present writ petitions have been filed contending that while dismissing the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court directed to continue the petitioners in the post of Field Supervisors and as there is no break in their service, they are entitled to all the increments and protection of pay, which was drawn on the date of selection. Therefore, rejection of the representation made by the petitioners under the impugned proceedings, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶17

Respondent-Bank filed a counter denying the claim of the petitioners stating that the petitioners were already informed that their promotions to the post of Field Supervisors are subject to disposal of W.P.No.494 of 1991, in view of the challenge of their promotions. Since the said writ petition has been allowed setting aside the

¶18

promotion and the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court directing to maintain status quo, if fresh selections are made the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Field Supervisors shall be effective only from 20.04.1999.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions.

¶20

Admittedly, the petitioners who were appointed as clerk-cumcashier on different dates as aforementioned were promoted to the post of Field Supervisor on 12.01.1991. On petitioner’s promotion, fitment benefits were extended to them and on such extension they were drawing the salaries from May, 1999. Once their promotion is set aside, they will be reverted to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashiers and the fitment benefits extended to them cannot be continued. Merely because this Court directed to continue them as Field Supervisors, until further selection is made in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.494 of 1991, they can be continued as field supervisors without extending the fitment benefits and adding the increments drawn during the said period, they will be considered as afresh to the post of field supervisors from such date till they were selected. Therefore, they cannot claim that they should be continued in the same scales, which they drawn earlier which includes the increments earned by them during the period, except the scales attached to the post of field supervisors afresh. They can earn the increments in the earlier scale/cadre i.e., clerk-cum-cashiers. Therefore, merely because they are drawing the scale attached to the post of Field Supervisors, they cannot claim the same scale, as they will not hold any increments in the post of Field Supervisors from 12.01.1991, but they are entitled to increments only in the cadre of Clerk-cum-Cashiers and on their promotion again to the post of Field

¶21

Supervisors on 07.05.1999, the basic pay applicable to the fresh candidates will be made applicable to the said post but not to the scale applicable to the promotees who already worked on the regular basis.

¶22

In view of the same, this Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in fixing the pay scale to the petitioners treating their promotion from 07.05.1999.

¶23

The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

__________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J

¶25

December 2, 2010 lmv

G. Subrahmanyam, v. Manjeera Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Subrahmanyam, v. Manjeera Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthinani Papaiah Vs M. Venkata Subba Reddy

Div Mngr. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Sankaraiah

Yedke Raju Vs The Principal Secretary

B.Steven Kumar, Vs The General Manager

K.V. Srinivasa Naidu Vs a.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Vidyuth Soudha

Karnati Appa Rao Vs Govt.of a.P., rep.by its Prl.Secty., Agrl. and Coop.