- (1.)Civil Appeal No. 10908 of 2014
1. The Appellants were promoted from the Junior Management Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as the 'JMGS-I') to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMGS-II') on 26.4.1996. On 10.3.1997, the Punjab and Sind Bank created a Specialist Cadre of officers designated as Electronic Data Processors. Since the Appellants were eligible for appointment as Electronic Data Processors, under the terms and conditions laid down by the Respondent-bank, they opted for appointment to the said Specialist Cadre. It is necessary to mention, that the Electronic Data Processors cadre, was admittedly created in the MMGS-II. Pursuant to the exercise of their option, all the Appellants were inducted into the said Specialist Cadre on 16.09.1997. Since the Appellants were members of the MMGS-II even prior to their induction into the Specialist Cadre, it is apparent that their appointment as Electronic Data Processors was a horizontal movement within the MMGS-II.

(2.)Appointment to the cadre of Electronic Data Processors, was also possible by promotion, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility, from the feeder cadre of JMGS-I. Some officers belonging to the JMGS-I cadre, were considered and promoted as Electronic Data Processors, at or around the same time, as the Appellants. Promotion to the Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre, envisaged a vertical movement from a lower cadre (JMGS-I), to a superior cadre (MMGS-II). In other words, those who were promoted to the Specialist Cadre, entered the MMGS-II, for the first time. A seniority dispute arose between the promotees from the JMGS-I, and those appointees as Electronic Data Processor, by horizontal movement (including the Appellants) from the MMGS-II. The promotees to the Specialist Cadre claimed superiority in seniority, because their date of appointment to the Specialist Cadre, preceded the date of appointment of the Appellants, to the same.
(3.)On the issue of seniority, at the relevant juncture i.e., in 1997, the prevalent provision was Regulation 18 of the Punjab & Sind Bank (Officers) Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the '1982 Regulations'). Regulation 18 aforementioned is being reproduced hereunder:
18(1) Each year the Bank shall prepare a list of officer in its service showing their names in the order of their seniority on an all India basis and containing such other particulars as the Bank may determine. A copy of such list shall be kept at every branch or office of the Bank.

(2) Seniority of an officer in a grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the date of his appointment in that grade or scale. Where there are two or more officers of the same length of service in that grade or scale, their inter-se seniority shall be reckoned with reference to their seniority in the immediately preceding grade or scale or the previous cadre to which they belonged to in the Bank's service. Where two or more officers have the same length of service in such preceding grade or scale or such previous cadre their seniority shall be determined with reference to their seniority in the immediately preceding grade or scale or cadre, as the case may be.

It is apparent from the aforesaid Regulation, applicable to officer employees of the Respondent-bank, that the date of appointment in a particular grade or scale, is the determining factor, for seniority. Accordingly, an individual who is placed in a higher scale first, is liable to be treated as senior, to an individual placed in the same scale later. It is not a matter of dispute, that the Appellants came to be appointed to the MMGS-II on 26.4.1996, and were horizontally transferred to the Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre on 16.9.1997 within the MMGS-II. It is also not in dispute, that those promoted vertically from the JMGS-I, to the Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre, were appointed later in the year 1997. Indisputably, all the Appellants entered the MMGS-II cadre, before the promotees. Based on their earlier appointment to the MMGS-II in 1996, the Appellants were entitled to claim a higher position in the seniority list viz. those promoted to the Specialist Electronic Data Processors Cadre in 1997, Under Regulation 18 of the 1982 Regulations. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid conclusion, has also drawn by the High Court, but on a different consideration. We are satisfied, that the aforesaid determination was fully justified, and therefore endorse the same, for the reasons recorded above.