Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 27: The High Court has held that it is the prerogative of the Government to integrate different cadres of service into one cadre and dismissed the plea challenging the promotion policy of J&K Bank classifying the scale-I cadre from lower cadres.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar said that it is well within the power of the State to integrate different cadres into one cadre as the creation of cadres and integration of different cadres into one cadre is entirely a policy matter for the State and does not attract equality clause.
“It is equally true that the State is well within its right to lay down any rule which it thinks appropriate for determining seniority in service and it is not competent to the Court to strike down such rule unless it falls foul of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court finds nothing illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory in such a decision of the respondent Bank, as is reflected in the Officers Promotion Policy”, Justice Kumar concluded.
The petitioners were aggrieved of and have challenged Officers Promotion Policy, 2024, dated 16.04.2024, issued by the J&K Bank Limited to the extent it has classified the officers recruited initially in Scale-I cadre and Officers elevated from lower cadres as ‘generalist cadre officers’.
The court in view of clear and unequivocal enunciation of law said the Article 14 does not forbid the merger or creation of different cadres for its service and it is well within the power of the State to integrate different cadres into one cadre.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
While dealing with the case on hand, court added, there was no promise or representation ever given to the petitioners that after they are regularly appointed as Junior Management (Scale-I), they will be put in a separate cadre of Law distinct from the General Scale-I cadre in the matter of seniority and promotion.
“It is true that the respondent Bank, having regard to their qualification and experience in Law, could have created a separate cadre of Junior Management (Scale-I)-Law but that could have been by way of a policy decision to be taken by the respondent Bank. This Court, in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the respondent Bank to create a separate cadre of Junior Management (Scale-I)-Law merely for the reason that it would be more appropriate and advisable to do so”, read the judgment.
As a matter of policy court added that it is in its wisdom, the respondent Bank did not create a separate Scale-I cadre for Law Graduates and made them also a part of generalist cadre consisting of all Scale-I officers recruited directly or elevated from lower cadres. This Court finds nothing illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory in such decision of the respondent Bank, as is reflected in the Officers Promotion Policy.
The petitioners came to be engaged as Relationship Executive-Law purely on contractual basis initially for a period of two years as contractual employees and were not entitled to claim permanent absorption in the service of the respondent Bank as a matter of right.
This was subject to consideration of the petitioners by the Bank for absorption on the basis of their performance. The petitioners, as per their job profile, were required to attend such legal work as might be assigned to them by the Bank from time to time. Their job included attending cases pending disposal before various courts. There is no doubt that at this stage, the engagement of the petitioners was for performance of duties in the legal field. It is because of this job requirement the petitioners were designated as Relationship Executive-Law.
From comparison of the nature of duties which they were required to perform as Relationship Executive-Law and the nature of duties which they were supposed to perform as Junior Management (Scale-I), it clearly comes out that as Relationship Executive-Law, they were supposed to perform the work of legal nature whereas, after having been appointed as Junior Management (Scale-I), they were supposed to perform the duties as per the assignments given by the respondent Bank from time to time and not necessarily the duties in the field of law.
It is because of this reason, the respondent Bank did not designate them as Junior Management-Law (Scale-I) as was done while engaging them as Relationship Executives. It is true that in the tentative seniority list of Scale-I officers in all cadres issued on 7th December, 2021, the petitioners have been separately placed under the heading “Law” but that does not change the situation. Once the petitioners were appointed as Scale-I Officers without specifying that the nature of their duties shall be in the field of law and separate from other Scale-I officers, it is not available to the petitioners to contend that the respondent Bank is bound to maintain their separate seniority and consequently provide them accelerated chances of promotion in their own cadre.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
