IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 OP.No. 26319 of 1999(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.T.A.ABRAHAM, DUFTRY, D.N.B.S., RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNOR, 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (KERALA), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. J.FRANCIS JOSEPH, DEFTRY, ESTABLISHMENT SECTION, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. G.THANKAPPAN - I, RECORD CLERK, DAD, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. C.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DUFTRY, R.P.C.D., RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, RBI FOR R1TO R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.26319/1999 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30/11/1987 IN W.A.NO.328/1985 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2 : COPY OF PETITION DATED 03/06/1999 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BANK. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 14/07/1999 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BANK. P4 : COPY OF LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 22/03/1999 SENT TO THE BANK AUTHORITIES. P5 : COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 27/07/1999 SENT TO THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER BY R2. P6 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 02/07/1999 SUBMITTED TO R1. P7 : COPY OF PETITION DATED 02/09/1999 SUBMITTED TO R1. P8 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 15/10/1999 SENT BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P.No.26319 of 1999 (G) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Dispute in this original petition pertains to the claim of the petitioner as against respondents 3 to 5. 2. The petitioner joined the Reserve Bank of India, the 1st respondent herein, at its Mumbai Office on 26/05/1966 as Peon. Subsequently accepting a request made by him, on condition that he will be the junior most, he was allotted transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, the petitioner joined Thiruvananthapuram on 25/06/1979. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Duftry with effect from 01/12/1985. Respondents 3 to 5 were also promoted to that post and the petitioner claims seniority over respondents 3 to 5. 3. In so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, it is seen that he was the junior most Peon at the time when the petitioner joined the post. Since the petitioner's transfer was on condition of forfeiture of his prior seniority and as the petitioner joined as the junior most, the petitioner stood junior to the 3rd respondent. Hence the seniority of the 3rd respondent is unassailable. O.P.No.26319/1999 -2- In so far as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, case of the petitioner is that they were promoted as Duftry subsequent to the petitioner and therefore are junior to him. However, it is pointed out by the respondents that respondents 4 & 5 were seniors to the petitioner and they were not promoted at the time when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Duftry for the reason that there were disciplinary proceedings pending against them. It is stated that on account of this, the petitioner was given adhoc promotion. Subsequently, respondents 4 & 5 were promoted to the post with retrospective effect when they were exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings. As a result, it is contended by the respondents that respondents 4 & 5 got their original seniority restored and therefore became senior to the petitioner. Thus from the facts as noticed above, it is evident that the petitioner cannot claim seniority over respondents 3, 4 & 5. If that be so, the contention raised in the original petition is unsustainable and is only to be rejected and I do so. The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg