C.W.P. No.15515 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15515 of 1989 Date of Decision. 04.10.2011 Sh. R.K. Bagga, Officer SMGS-IV, Local Head Office, State Bank of Inida, Sector 17, Chandigarh. .....Petitioner Versus The Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others .....Respondent Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshuman Mandhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The petitioner, who was an officer in State Bank of India challenges the order issued by the Chief General Manager posting him from the post of Manager (Mechanization) in the cadre of Senior Manager Grade Scale IV (SMGS-IV) as Branch Manager Ambala City. The grievance is that Manager (Mechanization) is higher post and order of transfer to Branch Manager constituted a reversion. The contention in defence is that he always belonged only to the lower post as SMGS-IV and later upgrading of the post of Manager (Mechanization) did not entitle the petitioner to be retained in the same post and therefore, when he was transferred to the post of Branch Manager, which was in the cadre of SMGS-IV, he suffered no reversion. 2. The matter has to be seen in the context of how the C.W.P. No.15515 of 1989 -2- appointment in the latter posting has been done to the petitioner. When the petitioner was an officer in the cadre of SMGS-IV at Chandigarh, Local Head Office, he had been posted as Manager (Mechanization) at the same office on 27.2.1989. Subsequently, the Personnel Department had reviewed the categorisation of posts and postings as on 01.01.1988 and issued a list of SMGS-V as on 01.01.1988 at the administrative office. This included one post of the Manager (Mechanization) and it was categorized in the post of SMGS-V on 02.05.1989. The petitioner, who was occupying the post of Manager (Mechanization) came therefore, to occupy a post which was subsequently upgraded. When he was transferred as a Branch Manager subsequently by the impugned order on 27.09.1989, he was going back to grade IV. The explanation by the management justifying its decision is that although Manager (Mechanization) post had been upgraded, so long as he was retained in the said post, he was being paid only an ad hoc allowance for officiating in the upgraded post and when there again fell vacancy at Ambala in Category IV, he was transferred to the category that he belonged to. While the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that his posting as Manager (Mechanization) was a permanent post and therefore, an upgradation automatically meant also a promotion in a permanent post and not merely in the capacity as officiating officer, the management would contend that the fact that higher allowances were given as a temporary measure was itself a proof that he was not meant to be taken as promoted when the post was upgraded. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent refers me to the decision in P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 1983 SC 1060 C.W.P. No.15515 of 1989 -3- where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that promotion on acting basis as District Education Officer but on the same pay as before promotion would not afford to the person holding a post on acting basis to claim salary of promotion post. This decision has no application in a case where admittedly the post was upgraded. The petitioner was being paid the additional allowance for the post. 4. Some of the decisions cited before me are reproduced for the sake of completion of treatment on the subject. In Achhru Ram Sharma Vs. State of Punjab 2002(4) SCT 472, a Division Bench of this Court had held that even ad hoc or current duty charge promotion will have to be done only strictly in accordance with seniority subject to suitability. This decision has also no application in a case where no one has complained that there was a breach of the seniority rule when he had been posted as Manager (Mechanization) and when subsequently, the post was upgraded, he was retained in the same post. In Gurmej Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, a Division Bench of this Court held that on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work, a current duty charge post would carry emoluments equivalent to the regular post. This decision also is not in any way applicable and it seems to even run in conflict to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Grover's case (supra). In Selvaraj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and others 1998(4) RSJ 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a teacher in a primary school looking after the duties of higher post, which under the state of Secretary Scout, was entitled to draw the salary which was on higher scale during the period of his officiation. If this judgment must be understood and applied to this case, it could only be stated that when the post of Manager (Mechanization) was upgraded, C.W.P. No.15515 of 1989 -4- the petitioner was entitled to be paid the higher scales and therefore, it would be no argument for the management to contend that the petitioner could not have demanded the higher scales as a matter of right. 5. The issue is whether the appointment that was made to the Manager (Mechanization) was ad hoc or when the post was upgraded, the petitioner was ever informed that his retention in the said post shall be taken as purely fortuitous and that he was only liable to be repatriated to the lower post. In this case, it must be noticed that when the order was issued joining as Manager (Mechanization), it was stated as follows:- “....it has now been decided to post you as Manager (Mechanization) at this office permanently......” 6. The management would take a plea that the petitioner, who was a member of the Senior Management Grade IV could have always been transferred to any other post falling within the same scale under the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979. On the basis of the post getting upgraded, he had never been paid salary/scale applicable, which a person or officer in the Senior Management Grade V got. He was being paid acting allowance of Rs.250/- per month and Rs.12/- per day for casual labourer engaged for domestic work as he happened to obtain in Senior Management Grade Scale V post. I will find that this does make a difference, for if the petitioner were to claim that by the time when upgradation of Manager (Mechanization) was done, he was entitled to the higher scale and he could not have been merely paid an acting allowance then it could be accepted that the petitioner was entitled to C.W.P. No.15515 of 1989 -5- insist that a transfer to the post as Manager in a branch, which was a Grade IV post amounted to reversion. On the other hand, although the post of Manager (Mechanization) was a permanent post and when he was originally posted and held the permanent postm, he continued to be in Grade IV. The moment upgradation was done and he was being paid only acting allowance, it clearly revealed that the management was not prepared to treat the upgradation also as promotion on higher post by way of entitlement. It must be stated for a proper consideration of law on the subject that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a situation of the effect of upgradation of post in Union of India Vs. Zorawar Singh (1982) 1 SCC 421, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that upgradation which was not to be temporary in nature nor on officiating basis and when there was no rule providing that promotion or upgradation was to be initially only on officiating basis, posting of person to the previously held post would amount to reversion. I would still not apply this principle only because when the post of Manager (Mechanization) was upgraded, he was not immediately being paid the higher scale nor did the petitioner ever complain about the same. It was purely fortuitous that came through a transfer made before upgradation of the post and where there resulted an upgradation, he was transferred to category to which he already belonged. 7. I cannot, therefore, allow for the claim of the petitioner to be acceded to. The writ petition ought to fail and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 04, 2011 Pankaj*