1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Shukla learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner in pursuance of the selection made by Banking Service Recruitment Board, Lucknow was selected for the post of Specialist Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed and joined on the said post in the head office of the respondent Bank on 1.3.1993. After successful completion of probation period of two years, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Publicity Officer with effect from 1.3.1995 vide order dated 20.3.1995. Copy of the order has been filed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager(Publicity) in MMG Scale II as Class II officer by order dated 5.12.2001, while he was posted as Publicity Officer at the regional office, Lucknow. Copy of the promotional order dated 5.12.2001 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The next promotion avenue which the petitioner could have been promoted on the post of Senior Manager in the Scale of MMG III, a circular was issued on 12.4.2005 converting the post of Specialist Officer to mainstream whereby it was provided that the specialist officers may be allowed to come to the mainstream of banking after five years of service unless the officers opt in writing to remain in the existing position as Specialist Officer. The option was invited and list of specialist officers who have completed five years of service on 31.3.2005 was annexed alongwith that circular. However, the petitioner was surprised to see that his name was not found in the list, though he had completed twelve years of service as Specialist Officer.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner represented his cause. Petitioner''s representation was forwarded by the Chief Manager of the Bank to the opposite party No. 3 for onward transmission to the opposite party No. 2. Since the petitioner was Specialist Officer and not in the mainstream of Banking, his name could not figure in a list of eligible officers for promotion of Officers of MMG Scale II to MMG Scale III. He was further informed that vide Circular dated 4.3.2005 Annexure No. 7 that Bank was in the process of carve out career path of the specialist officers. By another circular dated 2.12.2005, the list of officers who have completed five years service in the Bank were eligible for their promotion to MMG Scale III was circulated. Again, when the petitioner''s name was not found in the list, then he represented his cause to the Chief Manager under whom he was working with the request to forward the same alongwith his option letter to the head office. In the absence of any promotional avenue on account of non consideration of his case, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
5. It has been submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that there is posts upto the post of General Manager, Publicity on which the petitioner could have been promoted being working on the post of Manager Publicity. However, submission is denied by Shri Lalit Shukla by stating that there is a post in the mainstream of General Manager but there is no post in the petitioner''s stream. However, submission has been refuted by the petitioner''s counsel stating that there is a post of General Manager, Publicity.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. It shall be very hard for the petitioner to deprive him from his promotional avenues, stagnating his service career as it demoralises the person who is working with commitment to his job. In the absence of any promotional avenue, the employee would be demoralised and gradually stops to take interest in the work because of monotonous life. Promotional avenues are not only meant for encouragement of the employees working in a cadre but they are also meant to avail the benefit of experience to serve the society and the department. While serving in the Government and the private sector, they should be utilised for the betterment of the society.
7. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1989 (4) Supp 635 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anr. v. K.G.S. Bhatt and Anr. has observed that every Management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. The organization that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non managerial employees and their supervisors.
8. In another case reported in
9. In a recent judgment reported in
6. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotion for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumrbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India/Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the Scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other State in India, and what impeded it from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the appellant should have followed the said principle.
10. In the present case, though petitioner''s claim that there is promotional avenue of the post of General Manager, Publicity which has been denied by the respondent Bank, even then it shall be obligatory on the part of the respondent Bank to provide promotional avenues to the persons holding the post of Manager (Publicity). In case there is post of General Manager, Publicity in the petitioner''s stream, then naturally the petitioner shall be entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post in accordance to Rules. However, in the absence of such post or any promotion avenue, keeping the fact that the petitioner has served for more than twelve years, it shall be obligatory on the part of the respondent Bank to consider for creation of promotional avenues with regard to the petitioner''s cadre. There is one more reason why it is necessary for the respondent Bank to create an avenue for the petitioner''s cadre. Admittedly, in the mainstream, there are promotional avenues for the persons working in the Banking services. The person appointed in the same scale with perks and status in the mainstream, shall be entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post from time to time. In the absence of any promotional avenues, the petitioner shall face stagnation having demoralising effect hence the respondent is not justified in creating stagnation. With regard to petitioner''s cadre, there must be some promotional avenues, may be in the form of higher pay scale with perks or higher post with higher pay scale.
11. In view of above, it shall be obligatory on the part of Board of Directors and the respondent Allahabad Bank to consider the controversy and take a decision with regard to promotional avenues for the persons working in the stream of Manager (Publicity) and take a decision keeping the observations made hereinabove.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent to place the matter before the Board of Directors to consider for creation of promotional avenues with regard to the petitioner''s stream keeping the observations made hereinabove.
13. Let decision be taken accordingly, expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of service of certified copy of the present judgment. Petition is allowed accordingly.
