IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR WRIT PETITION Nos. 24661 – 662 OF 2017 (S-RES) Between:
1. Sri Kanakeshi Staff No.100398 S/o Late Rajappa House Keeper Cum Peon (HKP) Canara Bank Devapura Branch – 577527 Hosadurga Taluk Chitradurga District.
2. Sri Nagaraj Subbanna Navale Staff No.72476 S/o Late Subbanna House Keeper Cum Peon (HKP) Canara Bank, Chikkerur Branch Chikkerur – 581125 Haveri District.
(By Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan, Advocate for Sri Clifton D’Rozario - Advocate) And:
... Petitioners 1. Canara Bank A Body Corporate constituted under Banking Companies Act 1970, having Branches / Offices all over India and having its Head Office at No.112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru – 560 002 Represented by its Managing Director & C.E.O.
2. The General Manager Canara Bank Industrial Relations Section Human Resources Wing Head Office 112, J.C. Road Bengaluru – 560 002.
... Respondents (By Sri. T P Muthanna, Advocate for R-1 and R-2) ****** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the memo dated 05.05.2017 at Annexure-A issued by R-2 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the communication letter dated 08.05.2017 of R-2 addressed to 1st Petitioner vide Annexure-D and communication letter dated 25.05.2017 of R-2 addressed to 2nd Petitioner vide Annexure-D1 and etc., These Petitions coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents – Bank.
2. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the memo dated 5.5.2017 vide Annexure-“A” issued by the second respondent as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the communication letter dated 08.05.2017 vide Annexure- “D” issued by the second respondent to the first petitioner and the communication letter dated 25.05.2017 vide Annexure-“D1” issued by the second respondent to the second petitioner as well as such other reliefs incorporated in the prayer column of the writ petition.
3. Petitioners are said to be permanent employees of the respondent – Bank who are working as ‘House Keeper cum Peons’. The designation of petitioners is very well similar to normal sub-staff of the bank with same working condition and pay scales. Bank had also stated before NCSC that both the cadres are one and the same. During internal settlements of Bank with Unions, the Banks had laid down the procedure for internal promotions from sub-staff cadres to clerical cadres. As per this understanding on vogue, the respondent - Bank had issued a memo inviting the eligible sub-staff to give their ‘willingness’ letter to undergo the promotion process. The present petitioners, who were also eligible for the ensuing written test, gave their willingness letters to the respondents through their respective branches.
However, to the petitioners’ shock, the respondents issued a reply stating that the petitioners were not eligible to appear for the promotion process since their designation was ‘House Keeping cum Peon’ and not ‘Sub-staff’. Being aggrieved by the same, they gave a representation to the respondent – Bank seeking to re-consider their willingness and enable them to appear for the written test slated on 11.06.2017. However, no further reply was received from the respondent – Bank in respect of the said representation. It is the further case of the petitioners that while answering a query with NCSC, the respondent – Bank has taken a stand that the designations of ‘House Keeper cum Peon’ and ‘sub-staff’ are similar and that both working conditions, pay scales are also similar for both the cadre. Even during internal settlement with Trade Unions, the respondent – Bank had maintained that both the categories belong to subordinate staff cadre and are one and the same. Further that there is no separate promotion policy envisaged by the respondent – Bank to the cadre of ‘House Keeper cum Peon’. This obviously implies that both the ‘House Keeper cum Peon’ category and ‘sub-staff’ category are one and the same. When that being so, the respondent – Bank was not justified in denying an opportunity to the petitioners to appear for the promotion test conducted. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners have come up in these writ petitions.
4. When the matter is taken up today for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in these petitions is no longer res integra and similar petitions involving the same question of law pertaining to the very same Bank, i.e., Canara Bank have been recently decided in favour of the petitioners – employees working as House Keeper Cum Peons by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.54533- 54546/2018 disposed of on 18.07.2019. The said judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench when taken up in appeal in W.A.Nos.3450-3451/2019 & others by the respondent – Bank before a Division Bench of this Court, the said Division Bench has dismissed the appeals by order dated 18.09.2019 thus upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge. As a result, the petitioners – employees working as House Keeper Cum Peons have been held eligible to take up the promotion test for promotion to the next higher cadre if they satisfy the notified eligibility criteria.
5. In view of the settled legal position, the present petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners who are working as ‘House Keeper cum Peons’ with the respondent – Canara Bank are held eligible to participate in the promotional examination held for promotion to the next higher cadre on par with other sub-staffs, however subject to the condition that they satisfy the notified eligibility criteria for the promotional post.
This Court, by an order dated 09.06.2017 had directed the respondent – Bank to permit the petitioners to participate in the written test to be held on 11.06.2017. Accordingly, the petitioners are said to have taken up the said test but however the result of the said test has not been announced, awaiting the outcome of these petitions.
Hence, if the petitioners have taken up the test, the respondents – Bank shall announce the result of the said test and complete the further process in accordance with the guidelines.
Sd/- JUDGE KS