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 4^th and 5^th Bipartite settlements  (Clause 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 10^th 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 8^th Sep 1983, read            

           with  ‘Note’ to Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10^th 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 .

              promotion.

[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 1^st 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 8^th Sep 1983, read

        with  ‘Note’ to Clause 4B of Bipartite Settlement dated 10^th 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 6^th 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 1^st 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

          increments.

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]