A.P. Dhamija v. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

5. Stagnation Increments:

(i) in substitution of Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated

10th April, 1989, both clerical and subordinate staff shall be eligible for four stagnation increments at the rates and frequencies, as stated hereunder, and subject to the terms & conditions enumerated below: The clerical and subordinate staff on reaching the maximum in their respective scales of pay shall draw three stagnation increments at the rate of Rs.2301- and Rs.lOOI-, each due under this Settlement, and at the frequencies of three years and two years respectively from the dates on reaching the maximum of their scales as aforesaid and the Fourth Stagnation Increment of Rs.2301- or Rs.100I-, as the case may be, four years after earning Third Stagnation Increment. A workthan already in receipt of three stagnation increments, shall be eligible for the fourth and the last stagnation increment on l November, 1994 or four years after receiving the third stagnation increment, whichever comes later. In supersession of Clause 1(ii)(b) of Bipartite Settlement dated th September, 1983 read with 'Note' to Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April, 1989.

(i) Refusal to accept promotion at any stage or reversion within a year of promotion, whichever is permissible under Bank's rules will not disentitle an employee from getting stagnation increment/s. ~2

(ii) An employee shall not be eligible for stagnation increment/s, if he, after accepting promotion, seeks and is granted reversion after one year from the date of promotion.

(d) In respect of employees who in terms of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement dated th September, 1983 had not received stagnation increment/s, will now be eligible for the same with effect from 1st November, 1994 to the extent available to others under the previous Settlements. In one year, however, of the due increment/s, not more than one stagnation increment will be released and the fourth stagnation increment will be granted after 04 years from the date of third increment as released." The said clause was revisited and modified by a subsequent th Bipartite Settlement and as per the said modified clause, both clerical and subordinate staff became eligible for five stagnation increments with effect from 1 " November, 1997 at the rates and frequencies as stated thereunder:-

5. In partial modification of clause 5(a) of Bipartite Settlement dated th February, 1995, both clerical and subordinate staff shall be eligible for five stagnation increments with effect from 1st November, 1998 at the rates and frequencies, as stated hereunder:- The clerical and subordinate staff on reaching the maximum in their respective scales of pay shall draw Five Stagnation increments at the rate of Rs.380/- and Rs.170/- each, due under this Settlement, and at frequencies of three years and two years respectively from the dates of reaching the maximum of their scales as aforesaid. Provided that a clerical/subordinate staff already in receipt of four stagnation increments shall be eligible for the stagnation increment on 1st November, 1999 or 3/2 years respectively after receiving the fourth stagnation increment whichever is later. In respect of employees who had received their fourth stagnation increment on or after 1st November, 1996 but before 1st November, 1997, the fifth stagnation increment shall be released on and from 1St November, 1999. Provided further that an employee who has on or after 01.11.1997 but on or before the ate of this Settlement received the 4 th Stagnation Increment in terms of the • provision of the Sixth Bipartite Settlement dated 14th February, 1995 would have the date of release of this increment notionally preponed in terms of this Settlement and his Fifth Stagnation Increment released accordingly. There shall, however, be no payment of any arrears of pay and allowances on account of such preponment." The grievance of the appellant is that benefit under Clause 5 should have been extended to the appellant as well. As already stated, the appellant opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved from service on 30th September, 1997 and the above clause would be applicable to such clerical and subordinate staff who was on service as on 1st November, 1997. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefits under the said clause. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India and others vs. Dr. Vijayapurapu Subbayamma [2000 SCC(L&S) 1012] to contend that the Supreme Court has directed entitlement of the pension under similar circumstances. The learned counsel drew our attention to clause (c) of para 7 of the said judgment where the Court quoted extracts from its earlier decision in Union of India vs. Lieut E. Lacats [(1997) 7 SCC 334. We have gone through the said judgment. In that case, the Medical Officer in question retired on 13th November, 1980 and recommendation of the Pay Commission was accepted by the Government which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1986 on which date the Medical Officer was not in service. It was, therefore, held that he was not entitled to receive pension in terms of the said recommendation. In the given case also, the appellant has since retired much prior to the cut-off date, namely, 1st January, 1997. The learned Judge has gone into the above question and ultimately found that the appellant is not eligible to claim the benefit of clause 5 of the Seventh Bipartite Settlement which findings we are not inclined to interfere. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court has given a categorically finding that in the absence of any recommendation with retrospective effect, the officer in question was not entitled to receive pension under the recommendations of the Pay Commission. The appeal is dismissed.

JANUARY 15,2013 'Sn' CHIEF V.K. JAIN,