C.W.P No. 5502 of 1984 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5502 of 1984 Date of decision :October 22, 2008 Shri V.K.Anand, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The New Bank of India and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner prays for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him Middle Management Grade Scale II. The petitioner was originally appointed as Accountant with the respondent-bank on 28.2.1973. In 1975, he was promoted as a Manager, on which post he was confirmed w.e.f 1.11.1978. It is admitted in the writ petition that as per the policy of the respondent-bank, the grade of the post of Manager is not automatically granted on promotion but is granted in terms of the circular of the bank, dated 19.9.1978 (Annexure P-1). As per C.W.P No. 5502 of 1984 ::2:: the said circular, for up-gradation to a Branch Office a sub office has to inter-alia have a minimum deposit of Rs.50/- lacs for a continuous period of six months, and on the meeting of this target and consequent up-gradation to a Branch Office the Manager of such sub office would be placed in the next higher grade applicable to a Branch Manager. It is further averred that in the year 1980, Mullanpur Dakha sub office, where the petitioner had been posted as a Manager, achieved the target of deposits as mandated by the circular, Annexure P-1. However, despite the same the grade of the Manager was not granted to the petitioner. The second prayer made in the writ petition is with regard to the release of annual increments for the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 on the plea that these increments had been with-held without any disciplinary action having been initiated against the petitioner. Rather, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, no order has been passed with-holding the said increments. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to contradict the mandate of the circular, dated 19.9.1979 (Annexure P-1). He, however, relies upon an averment in the written statement to the effect that mere achieving of deposit target does not entitle an officer to be placed in a higher grade but he would have to be adjudged suitable and his over-all performance had to be found satisfactory. Nothing, however, has been placed on record to establish that this requirement existed or that there was any policy supplementing the circular, Annexure P-1. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on New Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulation, 1982 but, in my opinion, the same could not be held applicable to a claim for the year 1980. C.W.P No. 5502 of 1984 ::3:: Counsel for the respondents further urged that after being nationalized in October 1979, the staff of the respondent-bank was re- structured and the petitioner accepted his posting in the junior management grade scale-I and, therefore, he cannot now claim the scale of Branch Manager. In my opinion, this is a fallacious argument. The claim of the petitioner relates to the period 1980. The said claim, though not granted, had not been rejected also. Thus, on re-structuring whatever position was offered to the petitioner would obviously be subject to the decision of his claim for the Manager's pay scale in the year 1980; that is to say if subsequently the bank had accepted the claim of the petitioner for the pay scale of the Manager in the year 1980 the benefit thereof should have been granted to him in whatever position he was at the relevant time. The second claim of the petitioner, as noticed above, is with regard to the annual increments which were due to him for the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to deny the averments that the action of with-holding the said increments was not the consequence of any disciplinary proceedings. He has also not been able to point out any specific order by which these increments were directed to be with-held. The entire written statement of the bank is peppered with allegations and accusations against not only the conduct of the petitioner but also his performance. The non-release of increments has been sought to be defended on various pleas including that of exaggerating the deposits, as also indiscriminate grant of loans which subsequently became allegedly irrecoverable. However, these remained mere allegations since admittedly none of these was ever subject to any kind of inquiry proceedings. On the C.W.P No. 5502 of 1984 ::4:: contrary, letters, Annexures P-5 to P-7, have been written by the Regional Manager of the respondent-bank strongly recommending the release of benefits sought by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that (i) the action of the respondent-bank in not releasing the pay scale of the post of Manager in the year 1980 to the petitioner despite the branch office having met the target, as mandated by Annexure P-1, is illegal, and (ii) the action of the respondent-bank in with-holding the increments of the petitioner for a period of four years (otherwise a major penalty) without there being any inquiry or even an order having been passed to that effect by the competent authority is also illegal. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the pay scale of the post of the Manager from the period when the sub office achieved the target as mandated by Annexure P-1 and to further release him the benefit of four increments for the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 illegally withheld. It may be kept in mind that these are moneys belonging to the petitioner, which were wrongly withheld by the respondent-bank for the last quarter century. The respondent-bank shall compute the benefits, as per the above directions with interest @ 8% p.a, and release the same to the petitioner within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the benefits are not released to the petitioner within the above mentioned time frame, the respondent- bank will have to pay arrears with 10% interest p.a. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 21, 2008. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 5502 of 1984 ::5::