Case: State Bank Of Travancore Vs. Elias Elias &amp; Ors

necessarily follow that he should, in the transferee bank, be placed in a post having the same designation. x x x. On examining the position the Reserve Bank of India is of opinion that the duties which the employee was discharging in the transferor bank do not relate to the duties which a clerk has to do in the office."In the view of the Bank the duties performed by the Civil Agent were "essentially different from those of a clerk and called for a much lower degree of qualifications, skill and competence than those which a clerk normally brings to bear on his work, and since the subordinate cadre of the State Bank in which Elias was fitted was "in effect a residual classification" there was no change and the Bank was justified in placing him in that classification. It was also observed that there was "no change in the work" allotted to Elias nor was he expected to do the work of a chaprasi or a peon and that his emoluments were better than those in the transferor bank. The fact that prior to the fitment in the transferee bank, in terms of the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Scheme, Elias was addressed as a civil clerk did not confer on him the status of a clerk in the transferee bank. These observations relate to matters which could not be referred to the Reserve Bank and the decision of the Reserve Bank thereon is not made fina1 under the second proviso to sub-section (5) (i) of S. 45 of the Act. Only the question whether the qualifications and experience of any of the employees of the transferor bank are the same as or equivalent to the qualifications and experience of the other employees of corresponding rank or status under Clause (ii) of the first proviso is intended to be referred to the Reserve Bank. In that view the first argument advanced on behalf of the appellant must be rejected.9. It is said that Elias "had studied only upto 5th Form". But that is not decisive of the corresponding rank or status in which "he could be fitted" in the State Bank Elias was employed in the K O. Bank as a Civil Agent. The duties of a Civil Agent were clerical and not menial. In the K O. Bank no separate scale was prescribed for the post of a Civil Agent. The salary paid to Elias was that of a Clerk and his duties were those of a Clerk. In the State Bank, Elias was also performing the duties of a Civil Agent and there was no separate classification of the office of a Civil Agent. The subordinate cadre consisted of peons, watchmen and sweepers and of employees performing similar duties and a Civil Agent performing duties which were clerical in nature could not appropriately be placed in that classification. The decision of the Reserve Bank that the subordinate cadre was a residual cadre, is, in our judgment, not supported by any evidence. It was conceded before the High Court that Elias satisfied "three conditions as to the rank, status and qualifications" of a Clerk in the State Bank. It was only urged that he had not the requisite experience. Under Clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 45 (5) (i) the transferee bank has to grant the same remuneration and the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to employees of corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank subject to the qualifications and experience of the said employees being the same as or equivalent to those of such other employees of the transferee bank. The guarantee under Clause (i) of Section 45 (5) of the Act does not cover merely the remuneration: it covers the terms and conditions of service as well. It would be a gross denial of the guarantee if the employee is not given the rank and status which he had in the transferor bank. It is in our judgment, not open to the transferee bank to "fit" an employee of the transferor bank performing the duties of a clerk into a subordinate cadre manned by employees performing duties which are not clerical but of peons, watchmen, sweepers and the like.10. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, guarantees the same terms and conditions of service, and the transferee bank is entitled to "fit" the employees of the transferor bank into the corresponding rank or status. In doing so it has to take into account the qualifications and experience of the employees of the transferor bank. But in "fitting" an employee into the transferee bank, the rank and status enjoyed by an employee in the transferor bank cannot be ignored. A person performing certain duties in the transferor bank when admitted into the service of the transferee bank may be so "fitted" in a cadre which is equivalent in status and rank with the status and rank of the employees in the transferee bank, but in grading him into the cadre of equivalent status and rank experience and qualifications must be taken into account. On the ground of lack of experience and qualifications a person cannot be deprived of his rank and status in the transferee bank. Clause (ii) to the first proviso of Section 45 (5) (i) does not, in our judgment, authorise the transferee bank to "fit" an employee in the transferee bank into a post with rank and status lower than the rank and status enjoyed by the employee in the transferor bank. To accept the contention raised on behalf of the State Bank is in effect to defeat the guarantee relating to the terms and conditions of service under Clause (i) of Section 45 (5) and the first proviso thereto.11. In our judgment the High Court was right in holding that the orders passed by the State Bank "fitting" Elias into a subordinate cadre infringed the guarantee under Section 45 (5) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, guarantees the same terms and conditions of service, and the transferee bank is entitled to "fit" the employees of the transferor bank into the corresponding rank or status. In doing so it has to take into account the qualifications and experience of the employees of the transferor bank. But in "fitting" an employee into the transferee bank, the rank and status enjoyed by an employee in the transferor bank cannot be ignored. A person performing certain duties in the transferor bank when admitted into the service of the transferee bank may be so "fitted" in a cadre which is equivalent in status and rank with the status and rank of the employees in the transferee bank, but in grading him into the cadre of equivalent status and rank experience and qualifications must be taken into account. On the ground of lack of experience and qualifications a person cannot be deprived of his rank and status in the transferee bank. Clause (ii) to the first proviso of Section 45 (5) (i) does not, in our judgment, authorise the transferee bank to "fit" an employee in the transferee bank into a post with rank and status lower than the rank and status enjoyed by the employee in the transferor bank. To accept the contention raised on behalf of the State Bank is in effect to defeat the guarantee relating to the terms and conditions of service under Clause (i) of Section 45 (5) and the first proviso thereto.11. In our judgment the High Court was right in holding that the orders passed by the State Bank "fitting" Elias into a subordinate cadre infringed the guarantee under Section 45 (5) (i) ofthe Banking Regulation Act, 1949.