STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M R GANESH BABU
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
April 16,2002
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
M.R. GANESH BABU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER V. PRAMOD BHARTIYA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE STENOGRAPHERS RECOGNISED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. JASMER SINGH [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MINISTERIAL KARAMCHARI SANGH [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
GORDHAN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-7-76] [REFERRED TO]HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELLS CORPORATION VS. G S UPPAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL VS. ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES OF NATIONAL PRODUCTIVE COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
P L SHARMA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2003-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
GUJ STATE TEXTILE CORP. & OFFICERS & TECHN. UNION VS. GUJARAT STATE TEXTILE CORP LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-242] [REFERRED TO]
GABRUBHAI REVABHAI VS. BOTAD NAGAR PALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS (P) LIMITED VS. GANESH GOPINATH RANE [LAWS(BOM)-2023-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
M.B. PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP NARAIN DUBEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2002-8-190] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SAMBHUNATH CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2006-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA NAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-229] [REFERRED TO]
MAZAGAON DOCK LTD VS. ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2002-6-131] [REFERRED TO]
PRADESHIK SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA ADHAYPAK KALYAN SAMITI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PARDESH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
OIL and NATURAL GAS CORPN LTD VS. ENGINEERING MAJDOOR SANGH [LAWS(GJH)-2005-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
MUNMUN MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-7-73] [RELIED ON ]
KSANKUPAR TYNSONG VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. INDIAN AIRLINES CHAIRMAN [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-445] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR SHAKYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-302] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2005-7-143] [REFERRED]
AMOS SEB VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2020-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
HAM RAJ GARG AND OTHERS VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-573] [REFERRED]
SEHDEV PASWAN AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-505] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ SUBORDINATE SERVICE ASSOCIATION ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL CHAND VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-261] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. TOLARAM TILAKDAS MEGHWANI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-182] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS VS. KAMAL KANT SHARMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-354] [REFERRED TO]
JUNAID AMIN WANI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR BARMAN AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2016-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR BARMAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR SENGAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS. JASPAL KAUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-191] [REFERRED]
BRAHAM PRAKASH DUTTA VS. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. AMAR CHAND THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
ROPAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PLANT, MOHALI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-293] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TARIT RANJAN DAS [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2007-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHENDU CHOUDHURY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL CHAWALA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH NURSING ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-243] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-157] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-269] [REFERRED]
BALDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-177] [REFERRED TO]
GAJAJI GOPALJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH C BRAHMBHATT VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-53] [RELIED UPON]
DELHI JAL BOARD VS. ITS WORKMEN [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI RATNA BHUSAN PANDA & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATTAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2016-12-160] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-229] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KARTAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-309] [REFERRED TO]
NISHANT CHAWLA VS. TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH NATH SAXENA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-547] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. GREWAL VS. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-223] [REFERRED]
ALL NAGALAND PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2012-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAMJAN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-99] [REFERRED TO]
GITA RANI RASTOGI AND OTHERS VS. AUTHORIZED CONTROLLER MEERUT COLLEGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-344] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUDHARI RAKESH EKANATH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2012-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM N THAKKER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
KM NEELAM SHARMA VS. U P FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-140] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. -
(1.)These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the State Bank of India and are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 8th June, 1999 in Writ Appeal Nos. 2266-69 of 1999 whereby the appeals preferred by the appellant -Bank were dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge upheld. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the claim of officers under specialist cadre for grant of benefit of higher starting pay as was given to the Rural Development Officers, required consideration. The Court. therefore, directed the Bank to consider the matter keeping in view the duties and responsibilities of the writ petitioners (respondents herein) which were comparable with the duties and responsibilities of the Rural Development Officers (for short RDOs).
(2.)A few facts which are not in dispute may be noticed.
(3.)In the State Bank of India Officers are classified and categorized under four graders - the Top Executive Grade, the Senior Management Grade, the Middle Management Grade and the Junior Management Grade. In the instant case we are concerned with the officers who belong to the Junior Management Grade. This grade consists of Probationary Officers, Trainee officers and other officers who are technical persons or specialists such as Assistant Law Officer, Security Officer, Assistant Engineer, Technical Officer, Medical Officer and Rural Development Officer (herein referred to as RDOs). The officers of the Bank, who generally look after the Banking business have been described as generalist officers whereas the others have been described as specialist officers who advise and undertake the work of the Bank in their respective field of specialization. There are therefore, generalist officers on the one hand and specialist officers on the other. Before the year 1979 all the officers, generalist as well as specialist, were entitled to the pay-scale prescribed for the junior Management Grade, but apart from the pay -scale which was common, they were also entitled to the same benefit of higher starting salary by grant of advance increments. It is not disputed that they were all entitled to advance increments on appointment, so that their initial starting pay was fixed at a stage higher than the starting pay in the prescribed scale. It was stated at the Bar that all the officers were granted 4 increments when they initially joined the post on appointment.
(2.)A few facts which are not in dispute may be noticed.
(3.)In the State Bank of India Officers are classified and categorized under four graders - the Top Executive Grade, the Senior Management Grade, the Middle Management Grade and the Junior Management Grade. In the instant case we are concerned with the officers who belong to the Junior Management Grade. This grade consists of Probationary Officers, Trainee officers and other officers who are technical persons or specialists such as Assistant Law Officer, Security Officer, Assistant Engineer, Technical Officer, Medical Officer and Rural Development Officer (herein referred to as RDOs). The officers of the Bank, who generally look after the Banking business have been described as generalist officers whereas the others have been described as specialist officers who advise and undertake the work of the Bank in their respective field of specialization. There are therefore, generalist officers on the one hand and specialist officers on the other. Before the year 1979 all the officers, generalist as well as specialist, were entitled to the pay-scale prescribed for the junior Management Grade, but apart from the pay -scale which was common, they were also entitled to the same benefit of higher starting salary by grant of advance increments. It is not disputed that they were all entitled to advance increments on appointment, so that their initial starting pay was fixed at a stage higher than the starting pay in the prescribed scale. It was stated at the Bar that all the officers were granted 4 increments when they initially joined the post on appointment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.