RAKESH MEHTA AND OTHERSversusPUNJAB AND SINO BANK

A
                        [2014] 11 S.C.R. 278


                 RAKESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
                                                                      •
                                  V.
                    PUNJAB AND SINO BANK
                 (Civil Appeal No. 10908 of 2014)
                       DECEMBER 09, 2014
B
     [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ,]

        Service Law:

C      Punjab & Sind Bank (Officers) Regulations, 1982 - Reg
  18 - Seniority - Claim of, by the appellants - Appellants
  promoted from Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-1)
  to Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-11) and
  thereafter, horizontally transferred to the Specialist Electronic
o Data Processors Cadre within the MMGS-11 in the year 1997
  - Some officers belonging to the JMGS-1 cadre promoted
  vertically as Electronic Data Processors, later in the year 1997
  - Seniority between the promotees from the JMGS-1 and those
  appointees as Electronic Data Processor, by horizontal
E movement, including the appellants from the MMGS-11 - Held:
  Seniority between employees is a vested right - Adjudication
  of the inter-se seniority between the appellants, and other
  promotees from the JMGS-1, 1s to be determined, on the basis
  of the prevailing Rule which was Reg 18 - Under Reg 18, the
  date of appointment to a grade or scale would determine the
F superiority on the subject of seniority - Appellants came to
  the higher scale, on an earlier date vis-a-vis those who came
  to be promoted to the Specialist Cadre, from the JMGS-1 -
   Thus, the ap~ellants are superior, on the subject of seniority,
  with reference to promotees from the JMGS-1 - Government
G Circular dated 26.9.2002, cannot be taken into consideration
  to determine the seniority of the appellants since if was issued
  well after the inter-se seniority between the appellants and the
  promotees, was determined under Reg 18 - A

H                                278
•   RAKESH MEHTA v. PUNJAB AND SINO BANK


communication issued subsequently, would not alter the inter-
                                                                279

                                                                        A
se seniority position, which had crystallized earlier under the
existing 1982 Regulations - Government Circular cannot
have an overriding effect, over the prevailing 1982
Regulations - As regards, appellants claim to consider them
for promotion to MMGS-111, respondent-Bank directed to carry            B
out the said promotion exercise.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10908 of 2014.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2011 of the High              C
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 575 of 2010.

                               WITH

C.A. No. 10909 of 2014.
                                                                        D
   G.S. Chaturvedi (for Surya Kant), Jagat Arora (for Rajiv
Nanda) for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                        E
     J.S. KHEHAR, J.

Civil Appeal No.10908 of 2014

      1. The appellants were promoted from the Junior
Management Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as the                F
'JMGS-1') to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II
(hereinafter referred to as the 'MMGS-11') on 26.4.1996. On
10.3.1997, the Punjab and Sind Bank created a Specialist
Cadre of officers designated as Electronic Data Processors.
Since the appellants were eligible for appointment as Electronic        G
Data Processors, under the terms and conditions laid down by
the respondent-bank, they opted for appointment to the said
Specialist Cadre. It is necessary to mention, that the Electronic
Data Processors cadre, was admittedly created in the MMGS-
11. Pursuant to the exercise of their option, all the appellants were   H
A
    280       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 11 S.C.R.

    inducted into the said Specialist Cadre on 16.09.1997. Since
                                                                       •    .



    the appellants were members of the MMGS-11 even prior to their
    induction into the Specialist Cadre, it is apparent that their
    appointment as Electronic Data Processors was a horizontal
    movement within the MMGS-11.
B
         2. Appointment to the cadre of Electronic Data
  Processors, was also possible by promotion, subject to
  fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility, from the feeder cadre
  of JMGS-1. Some officers belonging to the JMGS-1 cadre, were
C considered and promoted as Electronic Data Processors, at
  or around the same time, as the appellants. Promotion to the
  Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre, envisaged a
  vertical movement from a lower cadre (JMGS-1), to a superior
  cadre (MMGS-11). In other words, those who were promoted to
D the Specialist Cadre, entered the MMGS-11, for the first time. A
  seniority dispute arose between the promotees from the JMGS-
  1, and those appointees as Electronic Data Processor, by
  horizontal movement (including the appellants) from the MMGS-
  11. The promotees to the Specialist Cadre claimed superiority
E in seniority, because their date of appointment to the Specialist
  Cadre, preceded the date of appointment of the appellants, to
  the same.

          3. On the issue of seniority, at the relevant juncture i.e., in
  1997, the prevalent provision was Regulation 18 of the Punjab
F & Sind Bank (Officers) Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred
  to as the '1982 Regulations'). Regulation 18 aforementioned
    is being reproduced hereunder:

          "18(1) Each year the Bank shall prepare a list of
G         officer in its service showing their names in the order
          of their seniority on an all India basis and containing
          such other particulars as the Bank may determine.
          A copy of such list shall be kept at every branch or
          office of the Bank.
H
•      RAKESH MEHTA v. PUNJAB AND SINO BANK
             [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
        (2) Seniority of an officer in a grade or scale shall be
                                                                 281

                                                                         A
        reckoned with reference to the date of his
        appointment in that grade or scale. Where there are
        two or more officers of the same length of service in
        that grade or scale, their inter-se seniority shall be
        reckoned with reference to their seniority in the                B
        immediately preceding grade or scale or the previous
        cadre to which they belonged to in the Bank's
        service. Where two or more officers have the same
        length of service in such preceding grade or scale
        or such previous cadre their seniority shall be                  C
        determined with reference to their seniority in the
        immediately preceding grade or scale or cadre, as
        the case may be."

                                               (emphasis is ours)        0
         4. It is apparent from the aforesaid regulation, applicable
    to officer employees of the respondent-bank, that the date of
    appointment in a particular grade or scale, is the determining
    factor, for seniority. Accordingly, an individual who is placed in
    a higher scale first, is liable to be treated as senior, to an       E
    individual placed in the same scale later. It is not a matter of
    dispute, that the appellants came to be appointed to the MMGS-
    11 on 26.4.1996, and were horizontally transferred to the
    Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre on 16.9.1997
    within the MMGS-11. It is also not in dispute, that those promoted   F
    vertically from the JMGS-1, to the Specialist Electronic Data
    Processors Cadre, were appointed later in the year 1997.
    Indisputably, all the appellants entered the MMGS-11 cadre,
    before the promotees. Based on their earlier appointment to
    the MMGS-11 in 1996, the appellants were entitled to claim a         G
    higher position in the seniority list viz. those promoted to the
    Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre in 1997, under
    Regulation 18 of the 1982 Regulations. As a matter of fact, the
    aforesaid conclusion, has also drawn by the High Court, but on
    a different consideration. We are satisfied, that the aforesaid      H
    282          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S.C.R.   •


A determination was fully justified, and therefore endorse the
  same, for the reasons recorded above.

       5. The dispute raised by the Bank with reference to the
  determination of seniority of the appellants, is based on a
B Government Circular dated 26.09.2002 issued by the Ministry
  of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking
  Division). The contents of the aforesaid Government Circular
  are being reproduced hereunder:

          "Sub: Seniority list of officers in Specialist Cadre.
c
          Sir,

          I am directed to refer to your letter No.203 dated
          26.08.2002 on the subject cited above and t,o draw
D         your attention to this Division's letter of even number
          dated 26.05.1995, which stipulates that on
          conversion to specialist cadre, such officers will be
          placed at the bottom of the seniority list of their
          respective grade/scale in the respective catege>ries in
E         specialist/generalist officers. It is clarified that the
          seniority in the specialist cadre is to be reckoned
          with reference to the date of entrv into SpE!cialist
          cadre and an officer with more length of service in
          general cadre, on conversion to specialist cannot be
          treated senior to the existing Specialist Officer on
F
          that date on the basis of his length of service in
          general cadre."

                                                 (emphasis is ours)

G       6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
    representing the respondent-Bank, that the bank is bound by
    the above Government Circular dated 26.09.2002. It was
    therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the
    respondent-Bank, that in terms of the aforesaid Government
H
•      RAKESH MEHTA v. PUNJAB AND SINO BANK                        283
             [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
    Circular, the seniority of officers appointed to a Specialist         A
    Cadre, was liable to be determined with reference to the date
    of their appointment to the Specialist Cadre. It was also
    submitted, that Regulation 18 of the 1982 Regulations, would
    not be applicable to them. Keeping in view the fact, that
    promotions made from the JMGS-1 to the Specialist Electronic          B
    Data Processors Cadre, in the year 1997, preceded the
    horizontal appointment of the appellants, to the Specialist
    Cadre on 16.9.1997, it was the vehement contention of the
    learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank, that the
    appellants could not have been assigned seniority, over and          C
    above the promotees, who came to be appointed to the
    Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre, prior to the
    appellants.

          7. It is not possible for us to accept the solitary contention · D
    advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the Bank.
    Seniority between employees, is a vested right. Its adjudication
     is determined on the basis of the prevalent rule, at the relevant
    juncture. When the appellants were inducted into MMGS-11 on
    26.4.1996, and also, when they were appointed to the
                                                                           E
     Specialist cadre on 16.9.1997, Regulation 18 of the 1982
     Regulations, was the prevalent provision, for the determination
    of inter-se seniority. The promotions in question, from the cadre
    of JMGS-1, to the .Specialist Cadre, were also made, when the
                         1
    1982 Regulations were applicable. It is therefore, that we hold,
                                                                           F
    that inter-se seniority between ttie appellants, and other
    promotees from the JMGS-1, had necessarily to be determined,
    on the basis of Regulation 18 of the 1982 Regulations. Under
    the mandate of the aforesaid Regulation, the date of
     appointment to a grade or scale would determine the G
    superiority on the subject of seniority. The appellants h~ving
    .been appointed to the superior MMGS-11 on 26.4.1996 came
    to the higher scale, on an earlier date vis-a-vis those who came
    to be prqmoted to the Specialist Electronic Data Processors
    Cadre (from the JMGS-1). Thus, there can be no doubt about H
    284      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 11 S.C.R.

A the superiority of the appellants, on the subject of seniority, with
                                                                      •
  reference to the promotees from the JMGS-1.

        8. Besides the conclusion drawn hereinabove, we are also
  satisfied to hold, that the Government Circular dated 26.9.2002,
8 could not have been taken into consideration to determine the
  seniority of the appellants. The Government Circular in question,
  was issued well after the inter-se seniority between the
  appellants and the promotees; came to be det_ermined under
  Regulation 18 of the 1982 Regulations. In our considered view,
C a communication issued subsequently, would not alter the inter-
  se seniority position, which had crystallized earlier under the
  existing 1982 Regulations. Furthermore, in our considered view,
  the Government Circular cannot have an overriding effect, over
  the prevailing 1982 Regulations. The method of determining
  seniority expressed in the 1982 Regulations, could not be
0
  altered through a Government Circular. Till the 1982
  Regulations are not amended or repealed, Regulation 18
  alone, would be the basis for determining seniority. For the
  reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the claim
E raised by the appellants insofar as the issue of seniority is
  concerned, is wholly justified. We accordingly uphold the
  impugned order passed by the High Court, not for the reasons
  recorded by the High Court, but for the reasons narrated above.

       9. Now that the position of seniority of the appellants has
F been settled, the appellants claim consideration for promotion
  to the Middle Management Grade Scale-Ill (hereinafter referred
  to as MMGS-111). For this reference has been made to the
  promotion exercise for the year 2002. The appellants had by
  then, acquired eligibility for consideration. We are informed,
G that the promotion exercise carried out, with reference to the
  MMGS-111, for the year 2002, has not yet been completed. In
  view of t~ above, we hereby direct the respondent-Bank to
  carry out ti\! aforesaid promotion exercise, without any further
  delay. Such of the appellants who are found suitable and eligible
H for promotion to the MMGS-111 shall be granted promotion
•     RAKESH MEHTA v. PUNJAB AND SINO BANK
            [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
                                                              285


 retrospectively. They shall also be entitled to wages against the    A
 promoted posts, with effect from the date of their promotion.

      10. The instant appeal is accordingly allowed, in the
 aforesaid terms.

 Civil Appeal No. 10909 of 2014                                       B

      11. In view of our order passed today in Civil Appeal No.
 10908 of 2014, accepting the claim of the appellants therein,
 the claim raised by the Punjab and Sind Bank, to the effect that
 the inter-se seniority for those appointed to the Specialist         C
 Electronic Data Processors Cadre, is to be determined on the
 basis of the Government Circular dated 26.9.2002, is hereby
 rejected.

       12. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.               0
. Nidhi Jain                                   Appeals disposed of.