http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V. PARTHASARATHY ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1992

BENCH: [KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]

ACT: Civil Services: State Bank  of India-Promotion  to the  post of  Head Clerk- Circular No. 42-Clause Three options-Outside the city-within city and  within the  same office-Debarment  on  refusal  of third and  final offer-Local  Head  Office  and  five  other offfices to  be considered  as one  Unit-Final offer made in one  such   office  Whether  valid  and  debars  the  optees permanently on refusal to accept.

HEADNOTE: The appellant-Bank issued Circular No. 42 containing an understanding reached  with the  Staff-union laying down the policy for  promotion of  clerks to the post of Head Clerks. As per clause 1(d) of the Circular the employees who decline to accept  Head Clerk  s post at a branch office outside the city in which they work, will have a further option when a vacancy arises  at any one of the Bank’s offices within that city. However, this was subject to the condition that at the material time  there was  no other  senior employee  who had similarly declined  the post  outside his  branch office, in which case  the senior-most  would have the first choice. It was further  provided that if an employee declines to accept the post  of Head  Clerk at  an office within the same city, his case  would be  considered only when a vacancy arises at his office.  This was  also subject  to the  condition  that there was  no senior  employee  similarly  situated  at  the material time.  If the  third and  final offer  is declined, there would be a permanent debarment of promotion. Since there  were six  offices at the Madras Local Head Office, a  common seniority  was maintained  and all the six offices were  considered as  one  office,  viz.  local  Head Office of which the other five offices were only parts. The Respondents  declined their first, second and final offers, though indisputably the final offer was made to them for being posted in an office forming part of the local Head Office. Both  the Respondents moved the High Court by way of Writ Petitions  and the  High Court  took the  view that the final offer made was not in the same office and so they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the same office. Being aggrieved  by the  said two decisions of the High Court, the appellant-Bank preferred the present appeals. On the question of interpretation of clause 1(d) of the circular in question: Allowing the appeals, this Court, HELD :1. The High Court’s interpretation of cl. 1(d) of the Circular that the third offer made was not in the office

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

where the  Respondents  were  working  and  therefore  their refusal to  accept the post did not exhaust the third option and they  were entitled  to be  posted as Head Clerks in the Office where  they were  working is incorrect in view of the fact that the local Head Office was split into six different offices which  together constituted one unit. By refusing to accept the  third  and  final  offer,  the  Respondents  had clearly exhausted  all the  three  options  and  had  become permanently debarred  from seeking  promotion to the post of Head Clerk. [366-E-G] 2. This  Court does  not intend  to interfere  with the appointment of  the respondents to the post of Head Clerk in the Regional  Office in the facts and circumstances of these matters which show that in one case a fortuitous appointment had arisen due to death of an employee within almost a month of the  Respondent’s refusal to accept the offer, and in the other case,  the Respondent has already been accommodated in the post  of Head  Clerk  in  the  Regional  Office  itself. However, this  would not  be treated as a precedent and this would not  affect the  interpretation of  clause 1(d) of the Circular, placed by this Court. [366-H; 367-A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos.  4799 4800 of 1992.      From the  Judgments  dated  4.3.1992  and  8.4.1992  in Madras High  Court in  W.P. No.  246/92 and  W.A. No. 349 of 1992.      G.  Ramaswamy   Attorney  General,   K.  Sankaran,   A. Rangananthan and A.V. Rangam for the Appellants.      M.K. Ramamurthi,  M.A. Krishnmoorthy, M.A. Chinnaswamy, H. Subramaniam and Ms. C. Ramamurthi for the Respondents.      Rajendra Sachhar, Ambrish Kumar and M.D. Pandey for the Inter-vener.      The Order of the Court was delivered:      Intervention application is allowed.      Leave granted.      Civil Appeal No. 4799 of 1992.      2. The controversy in this case is in a narrow compass. The appellant-Bank  issued Staff  Circular No. 42 containing an understanding  reached with  the Bank  staff-union laying down the  policy for promotion of clerks to the post of Head Clerks. Clause 1(d) of the said circular states as follows:      Employees  who  decline  to  accept      Head  Clerk’s   post  at  a  Branch      Office  outside   their  place   of      service, i.e.,  outside their city,      will   again    be   offered    the      appointment  only  when  a  vacancy      arises at  any one  of the  offices      within that  city, provided that at      the material time there is no other      senior employees at that office who      had  earlier   declined  a  posting      outside his Branch, as a Head Clerk      in  which   case  the   senior-most      employee will  first be offered the      appointment. Also,  if an  employee      declines to  accept the  post of  a      Head Clerk  at an office within the      same city, his case for appointment      as Head-Clerk  will  be  considered      only when  a vacancy  arises at his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    office,  in   the  order   of   his      seniority.  His   case  cannot   be      considered for  a vacancy at any of      the other offices in the city."      3. It  will be apparent from the above provision of the said clause  that those  employees who decline to accept the Head Clerk’s  post at  a branch  office which is outside the city in  which they  work will  have a  further option. Such employees would  be offered the post of Head Clerk again but only when  a vacancy arises at any one of the Bank’s offices within that city. This is of course subject to the condition that at the material time, there is no other senior employee who had  similarly declined  the  post  outside  his  branch office, in  which case, the senior-most would have the first choice. The further provision of this rule and with which we are concerned  in the  present case  is as  follows.  If  an employee declines  to accept  the post  of Head  Clerk at an office within the same city his case for appointment as Head Clerk would  be considered only when a vacancy arises at his office. This  is also subject to the condition that there is no senior  employee similarly situated at the material time. If the  third and the final offer for the post of Head Clerk is  declined,   there  is   a  permanent  debarment  of  the promotion. One  more thing  necessary to be stated before we come to the facts of the present case is that the appellant- Bank has  a local  Head Office  at Madras.  In 1972,  it was split into  two -  the local  Head Office  and  Madras  Main Branch. In  1976-77, there was a further splitting up of the local Head  Office and  the Main  Branch and  ultimately  in 1979,  the   Madras  Local  Head  Office  was  divided  into following six offices as part of the same Head Office:      "(i) Local Head Office      (ii) Madras Main Branch      (iii) Overseas Branch      (iv)  Regional   Office,  which  is      called Zonal Office      (v) The Commercial Branch      (vi) Siruthozhil Branch"      4. There  is no  dispute that  as far as the Clerks and the Head  Clerks in all the six parts of the same local Head Office are concerned, a common seniority list is maintained. The effect of the aforesaid arrangements for the purposes of the clause  1(d) is  that "the employees" in the said clause means the  employees in  all the said six parts of the local Head Office.  In other  words, if a vacancy for a Head Clerk occurred at  any of  the said six offices, it was considered to be a vacancy in one office, viz.,the local Head Office of which the other five offices were only parts.      5. It appears that respondent Parthasarathy was working as a  clerk in  the Madras Regional Office (now called Zonal Office) which is, as will be clear from above, a part of the Local Head  Office itself.  On 21st  August,  1973,  he  was offered the  post of  Head Clerk  at Deva  Kottain which  is outside Madras  city. This offer was declined by him. On 1st July, 1980,  he was  offered the  post of  Head Clerk in the Sowkarpet branch office in the same city which was less than 2 kms,  from his  Regional office  where he  was working. He declined the said offer too. He was then entitled to be considered for  posting as  Head Clerk  only in  his  office which meant  in any  of the  six parts  of  the  local  Head Office, that  being the third and the final offer that could be made to him. The third offer was made to him for the post of  Head Clerk  at the  Overseas branch, and that being part of  the same  local Head Office, he was bound to accept it. However, he declined the third and the final offer also,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

and issued a lawyer’s notice to the Bank contending that the Overseas branch was different from the Regional office where he was  working and,  therefore, the  offer given to him was contrary to  the said  clause 1(d).  The allegations made in the notice were of course denied by the bank.      6. On  6th September,  1983, one  A. Nizamuddin who was working as Head Clerk in the Regional office passed away and that post  became  vacant.  On  24th  September,  1983,  the respondent filed  a writ  petition before the High Court for quashing the  third and  the final  offer made to him on 4th August 1983,  and for  a direction  for posting  him in  the Regional office  where the  vacancy had  occurred. The  High Court took  the view  that the  third offer made was not for the post  of the  Head Clerk  in the  same office  where the respondent was working and, therefore, his refusal to accept the post  did not  exhaust  the  third  option  and  he  was entitled to the vacancy created by Nizamuddin’s death in the Regional office  where the  respondent was  working. We  are afraid this  interpretation is  incorrect  in  view  of  the position explained  above with  regard  to  the  local  Head Office which  was split  into six  different  offices  which together constituted  one unit.  The respondent, when he was offered the third option in the Overseas branch, was offered the post  in the  same office  where  he  was  working,  the Regional office  being as  much a part of the Head Office as the Overseas  branch. By  refusing to  accept the said third and the  final offer,  the respondent  had clearly exhausted all his  three options  and had  become permanently debarred from seeking promotion to the post of Head Clerk.      7. We,  however, do  not interfere with the appointment of the  respondent to the post of Head Clerk in the Regional office in the facts and circumstances of the case which show that a  fortuitous appointment  had arisen  within almost  a month of  his refusal  to accept  the offer.  This, however, will not  be treated  as a  precedent nor does it affect the interpretation that  we have  placed on  the clause  1(d) as above.      Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 1992      In this  case also,  the respondent Sampath was working as a Clerk in Madras Regional Office. The first offer of the post of  Head Clerk  was made  to him on 6th August, 1973 at Mudukulathur branch  which  is  in  Madras  city.  This  was declined by  him. On 12th May, 1980, he was given the second offer for  the post  of Head  Clerk  at  Air  Force  Station branch, Tambaram  which was  in Madras  city. The  third and final offer  was made to him on 4th August, 1983 to the post of Head  Clerk in  the Stationery  department of  the Madras Local Head  Office. There  is  no  dispute  that  Stationery department of the Local Head Offfice and the Regional Office form part  of one  unit, viz., Madras Local Head Office. The respondent declined this offer as well, and on 23rd January, 1984 filed  a writ  petition in  the High Court for quashing the third  offer and  for posting  him in  his office, viz., Regional Office  as the Head Clerk. The learned Single Judge of the  High Court  quashed the order making the third offer and allowed  the petition  following the earlier decision in Parthasarathy’s case  with which we have dealt with earlier. The Division  Bench of  the High  Court also  confirmed  the order.      For the  reasons we have given in C.A.No. 4799 of 1992, we   are unable  to accept  the interpretation  given by the High Court on clause 1(d) of Staff Circular No. 42. However, if in  the present  case, the  respondent has  already  been accommodated in  the post  of Head  Clerk  in  the  Regional Office itself,  we do not intend to interfere with the same.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

It is  nonetheless made  clear that it is the interpretation that we have placed on the said clause that will prevail and not the interpretation placed by the High Court.      With these  observations, the  appeals are allowed only to  the   extent  that  the  interpretation  placed  by  the appellant-Bank on  clause l(d)  of the Staff Circular No. 42 is correct  and the  decision of the High Court on the point is incorrect. There will be no order as to costs. G.N.                                       Appeals allowed