MAHADAV KALEKAR Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were the officers of the State Bank of Hyderabad in Junior Management Grade Scale I. They had joined the bank service as Award Staff on various dates and were as such governed by the settlements/agreements arrived at between the management of the Bank and the recognized Union/association of the employees of the Bank. In the year 1976 an agreement on Promotion Policy of the Award Staff was entered into between the managements of subsidiary banks (excluding the State bank of Saurashtra) of State Bank of India and the Stale Sector Bank Employees Association in which State Bank of Hyderabad and its employees union were also parties. The said agreement was circulated through circular dated 2/02/1976 as modified subsequently and circulated under Circular No. PER/15 of 1977. Under the said Promotion Policy the number of vacancies in Officers Grade II arising in the year were to be estimated and intimated to the employees union and steps were required to be taken for filling them up within a period of six months from the date of such notification. Such notified vacancies were to be filled up by promotion in the manner stated under each of the groups namely viz. Group 'a'. Group 'b and Group 'c'. The number of vacancies to be filled in under each of the above groups was as under :
Group 'a'--55 out of 100 (Seniority Channel) Group 'b --25 out of 100 (Merit Channel) Group 'c - 20 out of 100 (Direct Recruitment) THE said agreement, on Promotion Policy container detailed eligible conditions and other requirements for, the above Promotion Policy.
(3.)It was also agreed between the management of the associate banks including the State Bank of Hyderabad and the employees union that as per the agreed terms of the Promotion Policy, promotions under group 'c should be finalised first, followed by promotions under Group 'a and 'b either simultaneously or one after the other in that order. The case of the petitioners is that in the have Promotion Policy it was clearly formulated and agreed upon that promotions with regard to Group 'a' and. '3 were to be made simultaneously or that the promotions in Group 'a will be made first and thereafter Group 'b will be promoted. In support of his contention a copy of the letter/circular dated 5/05/1977 recording the proceedings of the meeting dated 14/04/1977 has been annexed as Annx. P-2.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.