Thank you very much sir. For your easier reference, I am reproducing my earlier post, since I don't know how to insert the link.
I AM WORKING IN A NATIONALISED BANK. IN BANKS, PAYMENT OF SALARY, REDEFINING OF RESPONSIBLITIES AND SERVICE CONDITIONS CHANGE DEPENDING UPON THE SETTLEMENTS SIGNED BETWEEN THE BANKS UNIONS AND THE MANAGEMENTS. THESE SETTLEMENTS ARE CALLED BY THE NAME BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTS. IN THE CASE OF BANK EMPLOYEE ANY SERVICE CONDITION PRIMARILY DEPENDS UPON THE CURRENT BIPARTITE IN FORCE AND IS NOT GOVERNED BY HIS DATE OF JOINING, PROMOTION (LIKE IN SOME GOVT POSTS )
STAGNATION INCREMENT WAS A NEW CONCEPT INTRODUCED IN THE III BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 8/9/1983, WHEREIN IT WAS STIPULATED THAT AN EMPLOYEE ON REACHING MAXIMUM IN HIS SCALE WILL BE RELEASED CERTAIN INCREMENTS,AFTER COMPLETION OF CERTAIN PERIOD (because, the terms and the amount of increment are revised from time to time as per the Bipartite settlement) DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW.
Employees who opt for reversion will not be eligible for promotion / to officiate in higher allowance carrying posts for a period of 2 years.
DATE OF JOINING :: 5 5 1977
DATE OF PROMOTION :: 1983
DATE OF REVERSION :: 1987 ( I requested for reversion to clerical cadre from officer cadre-
There was a provision in our Bank for such reversion -
My request was also acceded to by the Bank)
REACHED MAXIMUM >> 01 05 1991 (at this time eligibility after reaching maximum
ELIGIBLE FOR STAG INC 01 05 1994 3 years later)
I reached Maximum in my scale of pay in MAY 1991 and a STAGNATION INCREMENT WAS also released by the Bank on May 1994. However, during the next month, June 1994. the same was recovered and to my query I was informed that I was not eligible for stagnation increment in terms of III Bi partite settlement.
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT - 08 09 1983 - THIRD BIPARTITE
CLAUSE 1 (i) For every five completed years of service after reaching the maximum in
the scales of pay, members of the clerical and subordinate staff will be
granted stagnation increments,………………… etc
(ii) The grant of stagnation increments would be subject to the following conditions :
(a) Stagnation increments would rank for superannuation benefits, HRA,
CCA and other benefits.
(b) Stagnation increments would not be given to an employee who at
any time after the commencement of this settlement after being offered and / or selected for promotion refuses to accept such promotion.
When I sought reversion (1987) , the provisions of III Bipartite were in force .
I INTERPRETATION FOR THE BIPARTITE CLAUSE 1(ii) b :
I] The above clause is split up and could be explained as follows :
1] After being offered and selected for promotion refuses to accept
2] After being offered or selected for promotion refuses to accept
Both the above meanings apply only to those who refuse to accept promotion in the immediate/initial scenario only. I have accepted promotion worked as officer for more than 3 years and hence I am not covered under this clause.
II] The non eligibility for Stagnation Increment was not mentioned in my reversion proceedings of 1987. The ineligibility clause was supposed to be in existence from 1983 and after 4 years, the same is not stated in my reversion proceedings. This itself implies that the above interpretation was the one that was prevailing at that time.
III] The non inclusion of the disability for Stagnation Increment itself indicates that the Bank was also under the impression that refusal to accept and reversion are two quite distinct matters. Atleast it could be presumed that there was an ambiguity in the interpretation between the two words.
IV] To strengthen the above belief the First Stagnation increment was released to me in May 1994 by the Bank on the due date. and then subsequently recovered from my salary next month without any communication to me.
There is no change in the above clause during 4th and 5th Bipartite settlements (The very same clause of settlement dated 8 9 83 was reproduced asClause 4b dated 10 04 1989.)
Another Bipartite ( 6th Bipartite ) settlement was signed w e f 1 11 94
JUSTIFICATION AS PER SIXTH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
CLAUSE 5 – STAGNATION INCREMENTS –
[i] In substitution of CLAUSE 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April 1989, both clerical
and substaff shall be eligible for four stagnation increments at the rates and frequencies as stated hereunder, and subject to the terms and conditions enumerated below:
[a] the clerical and subordinate staff on reaching the maximum in their respective
scales of pay shall draw THREE stagnation increments at the rate of ………….
[b] A workman already in receipt of three stagnation increments,…………………..
[c] In supersession of Clause 1(ii)(b) of Bipartite Settement dated 8th Sep 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,
wherever permissible under Bank’s rules will not dis-entitle an employee from
getting stagnation increment/s.
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 date of .
[d] In respect of employees who, in terms of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement
dated 8 9 83, 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 granted after 4 years from the date the third
stagnation increment is released.
EXAMINATION OF CLAUSES 5 C [i] AND C [ii] :
1] It is to be noted that only in this Bipartite the word REVERSION is being
brought in for the first time.
2] This is quite distinct from after being offered and / or selected for promotion
refuses to accept as per the THIRD BIPARTITE.
3] The above change in the words accepts that there has been an anomaly in the
meaning of III Bipartite Settlement which is being set right / rectified.
4] In supersession of Clause 1(ii)(b) of Bipartite Settement dated 8th Sep 1983, read
with ‘Note’ to Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April 1989,
By the above sentence, the Stagnation Increment clauses of the III and IV th
Bipartite settlements are superceded by the new conditions for the eligibility
for stagnation increment with effect from the date of settlement 14 2 95
5] The phrase will not disentitle in Clause [C] [i] indicates futuristic reference
only and it does not cover the past cases.
EXAMINATION OF CLAUSES 5 C [ii]
6] The phrase in C(ii) employee shall not be eligible for stagnation increment/s
Shall is used in the futuristic tense only meaning that those who seek reversion
beyond one year after the settlement are not eligible for stagnation increment
From the above it could be inferred clearly that CLAUSES 5C[i] & [ii} have given a revised conditions for the eligibility of stagnation increments from the date of the SIXTH Bipartite Settlement i.e. 14 2 95
EXAMINATION OF CLAUSE 5 [d] :
Having redefined the eligibility clauses w e f the date of 6th Bipartite Settlement the next Clause 5 [d] is meant to set right the anamoly in the earlier settlement.
[d] In respect of employees who, in terms of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement dated 8 9 83, 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 granted after 4 years from the date the third stagnation increment is released.
1] This is a different clause and has no reference to 5C [i] and [ii]
2] The above clause does not say anything about 1 year condition to be eligible for stagnation
3] If the intention has been to include those sought reversion beyond 1 year relating to the period prior to the date of this settlement , this should have been worded accordingly and differently.
4] In any settlement when an ambiguity / anamoly has crept in it is only natural to redefine the conditions for removing the anomaly and providing succour to those who had been affected earlier.
My Bank is applying the VI Bipartite Settlement 5c(i) and 5(c)(ii) to my case conveniently arguing the these clauses apply with prospective effect only. They are applying on the III Bipartite settlement which is not correct. By virtue of 5c(i) and (ii), they have refused to pay me the stagnation increment.
My question is as follows :
1] Whether the explanations given above are correct?
2} What is the meaning of "supersession " and its effect ? Can it be interpreted to go back and redefine from 8 9 83? Whether "supersession" can be interpreted with a retrospect effect ?
3] Whether there are any Supreme Court cases involving the meaning and effect of "supersession" ? Can I get the details of the case and the no is possible ?
3] Stagnation increments are payable who are reverted to clerical cadre as punishment by the management for any misconduct. Whether this is justified ? When stagnation increment is payable to an employee who has been reverted by management as punishment, how come it is not payable to those who sought reversion on their own ?
4] The prohibitive clause was meant to be a deterrent one and this is more draconian- whether there is any justification for such a clause / interpretation.
5] Seeking reversion is not a suo moto decision - which Bank fancy in repeating ? There is a provision in my Bank - request is granted by the competent authority - How can this be termed as "suo moto"?
6] While employees who are reverted from a higher scale to lower scale after 1 year are eligible for stagnation increments, is it justifiable constitutionally that those who have sought voluntary reversion are not eligible for stagnation increments ?