CENTRAL BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, CALCUTTA ZONE AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-7-68
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 23,1996

Central Bank Officers Association, Calcutta Zone And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Central Bank of India and Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ABANI-TM RAY V. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK LIMITED V. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
SRI KRISHNA KANTO RAO V. DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. S.L. ABBAS [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA ROY V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TARKESHWAR PANDEV V. GENERAL MANAGER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. V. V.N. PRASAD DR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANGLO AF GHAN AGENCIES CIVIL APPEALS NOS 973 TO 975 OF 1967 THE UNION OF INDIA IN ALL THE APPEALS APPELLANT V OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K P JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]
LALJEE DUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
A JANARDHANA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRABODH VERMA DAL CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
J R RAGHUPATHY K MALLIAH M PAMPAPATHAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:S BAL REDDY:STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N P THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
N K SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM N E TELECOM CIRCLE VS. RAJENDRACH BHATTACHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. S S KOURAV [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D. P. Kundu, J. - (1.)The writ petitioners No. 2 and 3 are officers of Central Bank of India (for short the Bank) and are working as Foreign Exchange Officers (for short F.E.O.) in the said Bank. The petitioner No. 1 is Central Bank Officers. Association, Calcutta zone, The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the members of the petitioner No. 1. In the instant Writ application the writ petitioners have called in question (a) order of rotation (Annexure E of the Writ petition and subsequent order of transfer which is Annexure-G and consequential orders of enforcement which are Annexures H and I to the Writ petition.
(2.)The case of the writ petitioners is that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were appointed as F.E.O. and were governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). They were to remain as F.E.O. fora period of 5 years. On the expiry of 5 years the petitioners No. 2 and 3 on good faith made application for conversion to the mainstream of officers. Similarly 7 other FEOs also made similar applications which would appear from Annexure 'D' to the writ petition. The names of those 7 F.E.O.s are (1) Sri Tapan Kr. Sarkar, (2) Sri Debidas Chakraborty, (3) Sri Ashish Kr. Ghosh, (4) Sri Sajal Kr. Mitra, (5) Sri Satya Narayan Sen, (6) Sri Pritish Ch. Chakraborty and (7) Sri Karnal Kr. Basu. These 7 (seven) F.E.Os. are not parties to this Writ proceedings. The writ petitioners categorically stated that although the said officers made identical applications for conversion to the mainstream, they were not converted to mainstream as a result those 7 F.E.O.s are working as F.E.O.s for long 13 years in the same position and they are immune from any transfer and/or, rotation while the writ petitioners No. 2 and 3 after their conversion to mainstream are being rotated and are transferred repeatedly. The writ petitioners alleged that such action of the respondents amounts 40 unreasonable discrimination and such discriminatory treatment is being meted out to them because of the-fact that they belong to an association which does not enjoy the blessings of the management while those above named 7 (seven) F.E.O.s belong to a rival association which is in the good books of the management and as such there has been arbitrary discrimination and mala fide attitude on behalf of the management in rotating and/or transferring the Writ petitioners repeatedly while others including the above named 7 F.E.O.s are not touched. The petitioners have alleged violation of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the relevant guidelines for periodical job rotation and transfer of officer and staff as given in Annexure F to the writ application.
(3.)It is the case of the Writ petitioners that writ petitioners No. 2 and 3 were wrongly stated to be in the specialist category of the Bank while such was never the position as will appear from clause 15.1 of the promotion policy for officers as amended and/or modified upto 30-9-1992. The Writ petitioners stated that said clause 15.1 of the promotion policy gives a list of officers in the specialist category of the said Bank, the post of F.E.O. has not been included in the said list. The petitioners stated that the said promotion policy for officers is uniformly applicable to all officers of the bank throughout India and the same has been published under Regulation 50 of the said regulations. Said Regulation 50 lays down that the Managing Director, may, from time to time, issue such instruction or directions as may, in his opinion, be necessary for giving effect to or carrying out the provisions of these regulations.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.