Partly allowed

P. Sudha v. State of Bank of India

Madras HC22 Feb 2017WP/12169/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination order as contract officer of State Bank of India. Court observed facias order did not show applicability of revised performance norms. Quashed order permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation for reconsideration within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 31.12.2010 quashed; petitioner permitted to make fresh representation to competent authority within two weeks.

P. Sudha Vs State of Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 12169 of 2011

¶6

and MP Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶7

P.Sudha ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Bank of India
Rep. by its Chairman
Corporate Centre,
State Bank Bhavan,
Madame Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400 021.
2. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India
Local Head Office
No.16, College Lane,
Chennai-600 006.
3. The General Manager (NW2)
State Bank of India
Human Resources Department
Local Head Office
Circle Top House
No.16, College Lane,
Chennai-600 006. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the 3^rd respondent, quash the order of the 3^rd respondent dated 31.12.2010 bearing ref. No.HR:RC:3007 and consequently direct the respondent Bank to absorb the petitioner as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) on permanent basis with backwages, continuity of service and all consequential monetary and nonmonetary benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu Standing Counsel

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the 3^rd respondent, quash the order of the 3^rd respondent dated 31.12.2010 bearing ref. No.HR:RC:3007 and consequently direct the respondent Bank to absorb the petitioner as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) on permanent basis with backwages, continuity of service and all consequential monetary and non-monetary benefits.

¶14

Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Marketing and Recovery Officer (Rural) on contract basis with the respondent State Bank of India from 02.01.2009. The petitioner was duly selected by the Bank as per the policy approved by the Central Board of the Bank and governed by the Officer-Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Service and conduct Rules, 2004 framed by the Bank in exercise of its statutory powers under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. As per the said Rules, the appointments were made after an open advertisement and a selection process comprising of an oral interview and on selection of the best among those who possessed the eligibility criteria. The first advertisement for recruiting such officers was issued in May 2004. The petitioner was initially called Marketing & Recovery Officer (MRO) – Farm Sector and later from 2006, the Bank changed their designations to Officer-Marketing & Recovery (OMR) – Rural. In the year 2006 -2008, the Bank issued advertisement again and the most meritorious candidates were recruited through the same selection process. The petitioner was one of the candidates selected and appointed in the selection process held during the year 2008. A high eligibility criteria was uniformly prescribed for such recruitment.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the State Bank of India Officers- Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Service and conduct Rules, which were framed by the Bank with effect from 06.09.2004, are made applicable to the petitioner and persons recruited like the petitioner. Rule 4 therein envisaged the appointment of Officers-Marketing & Recovery (Rural) for a contractual period renewable depending on the performance and the State Bank of India's discretion and need. Rule 7 there in set out the career path as follows:

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Grade OMR – RURAL -	Mini S1 3 years	mum Ser C as OMR	vice Eligibility riteria - RURAL
OME – RURAL -	S2 4 years	as OMR	– RURAL -S1
OMR – RURAL -	S3 4 years	as OMR	– RURAL - S2

¶19

As per the rules and terms and conditions of service, on showing performance of the newly recruited contract officers, the Management of the Bank decided to confirm them as permanent officers. Such a decision was taken by the Central Board of the Bank held on 20.04.2006. Therefore, the decision for confirming the petitioner was purely based on their excellent performance for which a survey was earlier conducted by the Corporate Centre in 2006 – 2007.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to S1, S2 and S3 Grades on completion of 3 years or 4 years service, respectively. However, the Bank did not pass any orders of promotion to S1, S2 or S3. Contract appointees like the petitioner were becoming restive and started leaving the Bank's services. The Bank issued a circular dated 08.10.2007 on the subject of career path and compensation package for Officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural) and Technical Officers (Farm Sector). Thereafter, the aforesaid Rules were also circulated to all the Branch Heads to inform them of their service conditions and roles and responsibilities. The petitioner has represented for her permanent absorption, but she was orally assured that her services will be continued and absorbed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in spite of the aforesaid Circular and the Rules, the Bank had failed to implement its commitments, assurances and the aforesaid statutory Rules. With increased reports of excellent performance results from the Agri Business Units, the Bank finally proposed to appoint permanent “Officers Rural Business” (ORB), which should be State specific. A letter dated 15.5.2009 of the Bank in this regard was sent by the Chief General Manager (Rural Business). The petitioner was orally assured of the said post. However, this was also not implemented. Further, without giving the petitioner promotions to S1, S2 & S3 or making her permanent, the Bank suddenly came up with a totally illegal advertisement dated 6.6.2009 for direct recruitment to S1 grade of Officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural) and Technical Officers (Farm Sector) again on contractual basis. The said recruitment was against the State

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Bank of India Officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural) Services and Conduct Rules, 2004, as per which S1 grade is a promotion grade with a prescribed selection process based on the performance of officers like the petitioner, as set out in Rule 7. At this stage, the respondent-Bank issued advertisement dated 20.1.2010 for recruitment of Probationary Officers, (General as well as for Rural Business). Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent had issued the termination order dated 31.12.2010 to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner was discharged from the Bank with effect from 01.01.2011 the petitioner need not attend office from 02.01.2011. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Officer - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as `OMR’ for brevity) in State Bank of India for a period of two years from 02.01.2009 to 01.01.2011. The period of contract came to an end on 01.01.2011 and had not been renewed. In the meanwhile, a Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 7431 of 2010 was filed in this Court by State Bank of India Contract Officers’ Welfare Association (in which the Petitioner claims to be a member) impeaching an advertisement dated 30.01.2010 issued by State Bank of India for recruitment of Probationary Officers (Rural Business) from open market and for consequential direction to appoint existing Officers - Marketing & Recovery (Rural) (including the Petitioner) as permanent officers. During the pendency of that Writ Petition, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of State Bank of India in the meeting held on 14.07.2010 approved a policy for permanent absorption of Officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural), who are in the services of the bank as on 14.07.2010 subject to having achieved minimum 60% targets during the year 2009-2010. Recording the said subsequent development, this Court by order dated 25.10.2010 disposed the Writ Petition (W.P. No. 7431 of 2010) with liberty to the members of State Bank of India Contract Officers’ Welfare Association to agitate individual cases of non-absorption if necessity arises by initiating appropriate separate proceeding. According to the Respondents, since the Petitioner had not fulfilled the terms and conditions stipulated for permanent absorption, she could not be considered for permanent absorption and by a letter of discharge dated 31.12.2010, she was requested not to attend office from 02.01.2011 onwards and was relieved from the contractual employment. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 12169 of 2011 impugning the order of discharge from service dated 31.12.2010. Similar Writ Petitions were filed by 38 other OMRs and all the cases were grouped together as a batch for common hearing.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had by notice dated 03.10.2012 addressed to the Counsel for the Respondents required the Respondents to produce, inter alia, the letter dated 18.11.2011 bearing RBU/SPR/OMR/207 written by its Rural Business Unit wherein it had been mentioned that 29 OMRs who have not been absorbed are fully eligible for absorption meeting out the parameters and the instructions received from the Corporate Office. In pursuance thereof, the Respondents had on 29.11.2012 produced the said letter dated 18.11.2011 before this Court. However, the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the list of 29 OMRs who had been recommended for absorption in the said letter dated 18.11.2011. The Petitioner had been found to be not eligible for absorption based on the revised evaluation matrix received from her controller since she did not achieve 60% of the business and recovery target set out for her. After the production of the aforesaid letter dated 18.11.2011, this Court by order dated 17.12.2012 directed the Respondents to review the case of all the Petitioners in the batch including the Petitioner herein for permanent absorption as per the recommendations made by the Deputy General Manager (Rural Business Unit) vide proceedings dated 18.11.2011 and in light of the revised norms set out in the circular dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Corporate Centre of the Respondents.

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Competent Authority of the Respondent reviewed the cases of all the 39 Petitioners (including the Petitioner herein) in the light of the revised norms set out in the circular dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Corporate Centre of the Respondent and it had been found that even after applying the revised norms, the Petitioner, who had secured only 39.13% in the original performance, had not been found to be eligible for absorption due to her inadequate revised performance of 51.73% as against the required 60% for absorption. This Court by order dated 22.03.2013 in WP Nos.9894 of 2011 etc., disposed of 28 Writ Petitions in the batch recording the Report filed by the Respondents that the Petitioners in those cases would be absorbed in service as they had achieved the target as per the revised norms and there was no other impediment in that regard. The remaining Writ Petitions including the present case were posted for further hearing and disposal.

¶28

The Learned Standing Counsel for the respondentBank would further submit that the respondent-Bank has considered and passed orders and that the petitioner has not

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

reached the target as per the revised norms and hence, cannot claim any absorption in service. In this regard, the petitioner, during the hearing, relied on the letters dated 27.07.2010 and 20.12.2010 issued by the Branch Manager, Regional Business Office, Salem, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had achieved a higher target of 70.85%. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court in WP Nos. 9894 of 2011 etc., dated 22.02.2013, the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed as permanent employee in the respondent Bank. To which, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that on factual verification it has been ascertained that no such letters had been actually received at the Regional Business Office, Salem and that the official records of the Bank relating to the performance of the Nangavalli Branch, do not indicate that the petitioner had obtained such higher volume of business during the relevant period and resultantly, the said letters cannot be of any avail.

¶31

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-Bank and perused the materials placed before this Court. With regard to the claim of the petitioner for absorption in service, it solely depends on the achievement of the target by applying the revised norms, and the petitioner has now placed the materials in support of her claim, which would have been examined by the Competent Authority and the concerned authority has to pass orders on the claim made by the petitioner. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.12.2010, there is nothing on the face of that order to indicate as to whether the respondents had examined the eligibility of the Petitioner for extending the benefit of revising the business targets for the purpose of measuring the achievement stipulated for permanent absorption in service in terms of para 2(b) of the Circular No. RB/AC/SB/121 dated 18.08.2010 issued by the Corporate Centre of the Respondent.

¶32

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly placed OMRs, numbering about 28 who had been initially found to be ineligible for continuation in service, were later found to have achieved their target by applying the revised norms stipulated by the Corporate Centre of the Respondent and were considered by the respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 31.12.2010 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to make fresh representation with relevant materials to the 3^rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the Competent Authority of the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner and

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass reasoned order, in the light of the above said Circular issued by the Corporate Centre of the respondents and pass appropriate orders, on merits in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation from the petitioner. It is needless to add here that in the event of the Petitioner being found to be entitled for permanent absorption in service, other benefits as applicable to other similarly placed OMRs absorbed in service in terms of the relevant orders of the Respondent, shall be extended to the petitioner.

¶35

The Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Jv To 1 The Chairman, State of Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai 400 021. 2 The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, No.16, College Lane, Chennai 600 006. 3 The General Manager (NW2) State Bank of India, Human Resources Department, Local Head Office, Circle Top House No.16, College Lane, Chennai 600 006. +1cc to Mr.Audikesavalu, Advocate, S.R.No.11876 +1cc to Mr.Balan Haridas, Advocate, S.R.No.11629 KGK(CO) RS(24/03/2017) W.P. No. 12169 of 2011

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P. Sudha v. State of Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Sudha v. State of Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Saroja, Vs the Chief Executive Officer

P.Uthrapathi Vs The District Collector

D.Jayaprakash Vs The District Collector

S.Kanthasamy Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

T.Gopinath Vs the State of Tamilnadu

K.M.Shaik Naveeth, Vs the Public Information Officer