Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Late Umesh Prasad Singh Vs. Monghyr Kshetriya GramIn Bank Through Its Chairman and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- navaniti prasad singh, j.1. petitioner was recruited as field assistant in the erstwhile munghyr kshetriya gamin bank on 7.3.1980 in the pay scale of rs. 400 - 660/-. private respondents 4 to 15 and 24 to 32 were appointed on 14.11.1981 as field supervisors in the pay scale of rs. 296 - 460/-. similarly private respondents 16 to 23 and 33 to 45 were appointed on 15.3.1982 as filed supervisors in the pay scale of rs. 296 - 460/-. respondents 46 to 50 were initially appointed as cashiers in the pay scale of rs. 284 to 372/- but later in 1984 were made field supervisors in the pay scale ofrs. 296 - 460/-.the cadre of filed assistant and field supervisor were unified. later on, pursuant to award of national industrial tribunal, which found and directed that there should be parity in the pay scale as between the rural banks and sponsored banks, which was accepted by nabard with a guideline issued in this regard read with subsequent guideline of ministry of finance in this regard wherein filed supervisors were to be treated as officers junior management scale i, which later became junior management scale i. on the combined gradation list now being prepared giving retrospective effect from 1.9.1987 respondent nos. 4 to 15 have been shown senior to petitioner, who, as stated above, joined service earlier and in higher pay scale to them. this what is challenged by the petitioner as being arbitrary and depriving him of his seniority.2. respondent - bank has appeared and filed a counter affidavit.3. it may be stated that the respondent- bank has now merged with other such regional rural bank and is now known as bihar kshetriya gramin bank. it may also be noticed here that private- respondents 4 to 50 have so far not been noticed and are not represented. such finding and fact would show that their presence is not necessary.4. the appearing respondent- bank has pointed out that the petitioner has not stated in his writ petition that while respondents 4 to 23 were promoted to management cadre on 4.12.1987 and respondents 24 to 50 on 1.9.1990, petitioner was left out and remained a filed supervisor. meaning thereby that this promotion to a higher cadre was denied to the petitioner while his juniors were promoted first in 1987 and then in 1990. this fact remains unchallenged, and it is as a consequence of this fact that on unification of the cadre as between field supervisor and officer in junior management scale i as per the industrial award and the decision of nabard as well as the ministry of finance, the petitioner became junior.5. on behalf of respondent- bank, it is submitted that petitioner not having challenged and rightly so these so called suppressions in 1987 and then again in 1990 he cannot be permitted to do so now and upset the while position which is continued more than a decade. he had the opportunity and he had the knowledge of the fact to challenge his supersessions but as probably he did not qualify on merit, he did not challenge it and even today he does not challenge.6. having considered the matter, in my view, the delay in challenging his supersessions is fatal. petitioner, even it is assumed, was fit for promotion and was wrongly denied promotion that was done in 1987/1990 he did not challenge, almost 50 persons admitted much junior to him were placed much above him rather were taken to officer cadre he was left out. he has chosen not to challenge. thus, when there is unification of the cadre as between officers in the junior management scale i and filed supervisors, all being made officers in scale i, petitioner has now unnecessary to the rank. he cannot claim his seniority now because the private respondents have been in the cadre of officers for over a decade while he was still a filed supervisor. at this late stage, this court would not upset the apple cart. thus, in my view, the petitioner surely missed the bus, must blame himself for the situation and lost the seniority. i may note on behalf of appearing respondent- bank, it is suggested that, in fact, the petitioner failed to qualify for promotion at the time when the private respondents were taken to the officers grade, which the petitioner knew and because of that, he did not pursue the matter there and then. be that as it may, having not challenged those decision at the relevant time, in my view, he cannot be permitted to challenge the same after two decades.7. with the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dismissed.