Employer cannot withdraw promotion when its directions cause shortfall in mandatory rural-service eligibility.

The respondent was posted by the State Bank of India at Dabra Branch, Hisar, which was concededly a rural branch, on 28 March 2013.

For promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale-III (MMGS-III), the applicable service requirement was completion of at least two years’ service in a rural or semi-urban branch.

By the relevant promotion date, the respondent had completed more than two years from the date of his posting at Dabra and was selected and promoted to MMGS-III with effect from 31 July 2017, pursuant to an order dated 10 October 2017.

Subsequently, the Bank issued a show-cause notice alleging that, although the respondent’s formal posting was at Dabra, he had actually discharged duties at RBO Hisar, an urban location, as reflected in login records.

On that basis, the Bank concluded that he had not completed the requisite two years of actual rural service and withdrew his promotion with effect from 31 July 2017.

The respondent challenged the withdrawal in CWP No. 38123 of 2018. The learned Single Judge held the withdrawal illegal, restored the promotion, and granted consequential benefits. The Bank preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The respondent contended that his work at Hisar was undertaken at the direction of senior officials and that he could not be penalised for complying with the Bank’s directions.

Whether the Bank could withdraw the respondent’s promotion on the ground that he had not completed two years of actual rural service when his formal posting remained at a rural branch and his work at the urban location was performed pursuant to the Bank’s directions?

Whether the Bank could rely on the applicable promotion rules, or on the possibility of retrospective promotion after completion of the rural-service requirement, to justify withdrawal of a promotion already granted and operated for approximately one and a half years?

The Court applied the applicable promotion requirement that an employee seeking promotion to MMGS-III must complete at least two years’ service in a rural or semi-urban branch.

It further applied the principle that an employer cannot take advantage of a situation created by its own directions or conduct: where an employee posted to a rural branch is required by the employer to perform duties at an urban location, the resulting shortfall in actual rural work is attributable to the employer and cannot be used to deny or withdraw the employee’s promotion.

The Court also held that, once the Bank had granted the promotion despite the alleged deficiency, the relevant condition stood waived in the circumstances of the case, and withdrawal of the promotion was impermissible, particularly after it had remained operative for approximately one and a half years.

No judicial precedent or specific statutory provision was cited in the judgment.

The Court treated the respondent’s formal posting at Dabra as the material circumstance and accepted that Dabra was a rural branch.

Since the respondent was required to work at Hisar pursuant to the Bank’s directions, the absence of two years’ actual work at the rural branch was attributable to the Bank rather than to any default by the respondent.

The Bank therefore could not direct the respondent to work in an urban area and subsequently rely on that very arrangement to invalidate his promotion.

The Court further held that the Bank’s argument concerning retrospective promotion did not assist it because the issue ought to have been examined before the promotion was granted; having granted and continued the promotion, the Bank could not later withdraw it on that basis.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge restoring the promotion with consequential benefits was upheld.

The Bank was directed to extend any benefits withheld during the pendency of the proceedings in accordance with the respondent’s entitlement within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The application for placing the respondent’s attendance report on record was allowed, and the pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.