Peelaram Pal Vs Bank of Baroda

1 - Bank Of Baroda Through Regional Manager (Regional Head), Durg Regional Officer, First Floor, Zonal Market, Sector 10, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Assistant General Manager (R.H.), Bank Of Baroda, Regional Officer, First Floor, Zonal Market, Sector 10, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Deputy General Manager, (R.H.), Bank Of Baroda, Regional Officer, First Floor, Zonal Market, Sector 10, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Chief Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Saja Branch, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

17/06/2026

¶20

Challenge in the present petition is to the communication dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/4) and the consequential relieving order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P/8), whereby the engagement of the petitioner as Business Correspondent (BC) Supervisor has been discontinued.

¶21

2

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.12.2023 issued by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was selected and engaged as BC Supervisor vide letter dated 28.03.2024. It is submitted that in terms of the applicable Business Correspondent Engagement Policy, the engagement was for a period of 36 months and was to continue till March, 2027. However, during the subsistence of the contractual period, respondent No.1 issued communication dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/4) regarding nonrenewal/termination of the petitioner's engagement without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 15.04.2026 seeking clarification regarding the reasons for such action and also addressed e-mails dated 23.04.2026, 30.04.2026 and 05.05.2026 besides issuing a legal notice. Despite the same, the respondent authorities, without considering the petitioner's representations and without affording any opportunity of hearing, issued the consequential relieving order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P/8). It is contended that the impugned action is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the terms governing the petitioner's engagement. Therefore, Annexures P/4 and P/8 deserve to be quashed.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while placing on record the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Bank, submits that the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis and the relationship between the parties is governed entirely by the terms and conditions of the said agreement. It is submitted that the agreement

¶24

3

¶25

contains a specific clause enabling termination of the engagement in accordance with its terms and further stipulates that the engagement shall not create any employer-employee relationship between the parties. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot claim any right dehors the contract and no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the agreement governing the engagement of the petitioner.

¶27

A perusal of the agreement placed on record by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank reveals that it contains specific stipulations regarding termination of engagement and the nature of relationship between the parties, which read as under:-

¶28

“ Term and Termination of Service

¶29

The Contract will be initially for period of 12 months subject to review every 6 months. Either party can initiate for termination of contract by giving 30 days’ notice. However, in case of non-satisfactory conduct/misbehavior, the ban reserves the right to terminate the contract instantly without any prior notice and assigning any reason.”

¶30

No Employer- Employee Relationship

¶31

The Other party engaged by the Bank is only on the contractual basis with specified terms and conditions for a limited period and subject to satisfactory services. ”

¶32

Upon perusal of the aforesaid contractual stipulation as well as the

¶33

4

¶34

impugned communication dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/4), it is evident that either party was entitled to terminate the contract by giving 30 days' notice. The record further reveals that prior to issuance of the consequential relieving order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P/8), the respondent-Bank had issued communication dated 06.04.2026 granting 30 days' notice to the petitioner.

¶35

Thus, the action impugned in the present petition has been taken in accordance with the terms governing the contractual engagement of the petitioner. Even assuming that the engagement was for a period of 36 months as contended by the petitioner, the contract itself permitted termination upon issuance of a 30 days' notice. Since the said condition stands complied with, the petitioner cannot claim a right contrary to the agreed terms. Consequently, the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice also does not merit acceptance.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity in the impugned communication dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/4) and the consequential relieving order dated 05.05.2026 (Annexure P/8) warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .

¶38

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶39

Rahul

Peelaram Pal v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peelaram Pal v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Aswan Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimla Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khan Waquaruzzaman Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Choubey Vs Himshikhar Gupta

Mitthulal Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rukmani Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh