Orissa High Court
Sri T Sashi Kumar vs State Bank Of India And Others on 11 November, 2014
Author: B.R.Sarangi
Bench: B.R.Sarangi
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4118 of 2006
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
----------
Sri T.Sashi Kumar ......... Petitioner
-versus-
State Bank of India and others ......... Opposite Parties
For petitioner : M/s.J.N.Rath, S.K.Jethy, M.K.Panda,
P.S.Samantara, S.B.Mohanty,
P.R.Sahoo, P.K.Behera & S.K.Mishra.
For opp. parties : Mr.P.V.Balkrishna
(for Opp.Party nos.2 & 3)
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
Date of hearing: 3.11.2014 | Date of judgment : 11.11.2014
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 6.2.2006 passed by the General Manager (Network-II) rejecting his claim for grant of house rent on consideration of his representation.
2. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner joined the State Bank of India on 12.1.1979. Thereafter, he was assigned the job of Assistant Cashier on 5.10.1985. Subsequently, he was allowed to discharge the duties of a Senior Assistant on 1.4.2003 and thereafter he was given the assignment of Special Assistant. While 2 working as such, he was transferred from Aska Branch to Purushottampur Branch vide Staff/SL/42/77 dated 3.12.2003. A circular letter was issued by the Bank in the Personnel and HRD Department, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar vide No.CIR/DO/P & HRD/ 31 of 2003-04 dated 6.8.2003 relating to Settlement on Computerization, Redeployment/ Transfer of Workmen Staff and other HR related matters vide Annexure-2, which provided for payment of house rent to Clerical Staff @ Rs.500/- per month. Thereafter, the said Personnel Department also issued another circular on 20.10.2003 vide Annexure-3 providing guidelines for in cadre career progression appointment of special pay carrying positions within the cadre in Clerical Staff. Under Clause 2(ii) eligibility was prescribed fixed for grant of special pay in respect of Special Assistant, and it was stated that all employees in Clerical Cadre (excluding Record Keepers/ Record Keeper-cum-Cashiers/ Godown Keepers/ Bill Collectors) with minimum qualification of Matriculation and 23 years of service or more as on 1st August each year and not drawing special pay of Rs.1213/- per month or more. In view of the settlement made on 6.8.2003 and the subsequent circular dated 20.10.2003, the petitioner having been transferred from Aska Road to Purshottampur as Special Assistant, he claims that he is entitled to house rent, but the same has not been paid to him. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.J.N.Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that 3 the benefit admissible to the petitioner pursuant to the circular vide Annexures-1 and 2 has not been extended and on erroneous consideration, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure-8. It is further urged that the order impugned vide Annexure-8 has been passed contrary to the guidelines in Annexures-1 and 2 by non-application of mind by the authorities.
4. Mr.P.V.Balkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the Bank strenuously disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits in conformity with the provisions contained in Annexures-1 and 2 and rather the benefit in consonance with Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 20.10.2003. He further submitted that the claim having not been admissible pursuant to Annexure-A and the authorities on consideration of the representation of the petitioner having passed the order in Annexure-8 in consonance with Annexure-A, the same should not be interfered with by this Court.
5. On the basis of the above pleaded facts, it is admitted that the petitioner, who was working at Aska Road has been transferred to Purushottampur Branch as Special Assistant. The petitioner's claim for house rent was considered by the authorities in consonance with law and has been rejected as the same was not admissible to him. As it appears, in order to facilitate improved productivity, flexibility in role, responsibilities and mobility for better utilization of human resources for emerging needs and requirement of 4 the Bank and furthermore to offer opportunity to staff to shoulder higher role and responsibilities and work in position eligible for special pay, the management of the Bank entered into a settlement with the State Bank of India Staff Federation. In terms of settlement between the management and federation, all employees in Clerical Cadre (excluding Record Keepers/ Record Keeper-cum-Cashiers/ Godown Keepers/ Bill Collectors) with minimum qualification of Matriculation and having 23 years of service as on 1st August each year, are eligible for consideration. According to the eligibility of the employees, branch-wise/ office-wise list of all permanent employees are prepared in descending order of their service seniority. Names of employees, who have put in the longest service in the Bank will be listed first and so on. The objective behind the same is to gainfully utilize the services of employees and ensure that over-staffing at the branches are avoided at all costs. After identification of posts and preparation of list of eligible employees, the competent authority issues appointment letters, in duplicate, to such employees advising therein their branch of posting. The employee concerned should convey his willingness/ unwillingness within three days of receipt. The employee has the option to either accept or deny the offer of appointment. As per the terms of circular, special pay will be payable from the date of joining his duties at the new place of posting. In consonance with the said scheme, the petitioner having conveyed his willingness to accept the posting as Special Assistant at Purushottampur Branch, he has been posted there. Therefore, he cannot claim any benefit other than 5 that contemplated under the scheme. The claim of house rent is not provided under the scheme and consequently thereof, he is not entitled to get such relief. Needless to say, the scheme has been prepared after due discussion and deliberation between the Management and the Federation and accordingly, circular was issued bearing No.CIR/DO/P & HRD/73 of 2003-04 dated 20.10.2003.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the claim made by the petitioner on the basis of the circulars Annexures-1 and 2 cannot be sustained. That apart, the authority while considering the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 27.10.2005 in W.P.(C) No.13030 of 2005, has passed a reasoned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
.......................................
Dr.B.R.Sarangi, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 11th November, 2014/PKSahoo