1. Heard Mr. Nilesh A Pandya learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.M. Parikh learned advocate for the respondent- Bank.
2. In this petition, the challenge is to the action of respondent-Bank of not assigining seniority and in turn the post to the petitioner carrying special pay, on the ground that the petitioner is imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which will have the effect of postponing his future increments.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the authorities of the Bank have excluded the period of these two years for the purpose of calculation of regular full time service for the purpose of seniority. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the action of the bank is not supported by the rules and hence this petition.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the respondent-Bank has contended that the action of the respondent-Bank is well within the terms of 2(p) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relevant part of Clause 3.1 of the said settlement reads as under:
“3.1(a) In this Settlement
(a) “seniority” shall mean length of regular full time service from the date of entry in the cadre provided that;
(i) in the clerical cadre while calculating the length of regular full time service additional weightage shall be given as follows:
For Graduation -2 years of service shall be added.
For CAIIB-I -1 year of service CAIB-I (London) shall be added.
For CAIIB-II -2 years of service CAIB-II (London) shall be added.
Thus, weightage for those who have completed CAIIB-I/CAIB-I (London) and CAIIB-II/CAIB-II (London) shall be 3 years of service.
(ii) in the subordinate cadre length of regular full time service shall be reckoned from the date of appointment/ conversion, etc., in the subordinate cadre in the category of peon or with combined designation of peon. Conversion shall mean conversion as peon or with combined designation of peon, from the following categories in the subordinate cadre:
watchman, hamal, sweeper, farrash and like categories.
Regular full time service shall mean actual service which shall include all kinds of leave and any period of probation but shall exclude period of temporary /casual employment and any period for which increment is either stopped or postponed.”
Relying on the last paragraph of this clause, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that exclusion of two years which is the subject matter of this petition, is as per the above Rule. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for.
5. The only contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the portion of this clause i.e. “regular full time service“ will go with Rule 3.1(a)(ii) only, and the case of the petitioner who is otherwise appointee in clerical cadre will not be governed by this explanation. On plain reading of the text of the rule, the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is not acceptable and hence, the same is rejected. The explanation/rule to the effect that “regular full time service” means actual service which shall include all kinds of leave and any period of probation but shall exclude period of temporary/casual employment and any period for which increment is either stopped or postponed, shall be applicable to the petitioner, as well. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is rejected.
6. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] mandora/