Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gulab Ram vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 31 May, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7829 / 2018
Bapu Lal Meena S/o Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 27 Years,
B/c Meena, R/o Village Post Raipur Jungle, Tehsil Arnod, District
Pratapgarh-(Raj.). (BC Code 67570001)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6371 / 2018
Gulaba Ram S/o Shri Chhatra Ram, Aged About 34 Years, B/c
Saragra, R/o V/P Ghana, Teh. Ahore, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
(2 of 30)
6. Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Bagra, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.
7. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7785 / 2018
Khushbu Jain, D/o Bhagwati Lal Jain, W/o Nilesh Jain, Aged About
25 Years, B/c Jain, R/o VPO Banoda, Tehsil Salumbar, District
Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7786 / 2018
Deepak Vaishnav S/o Shri Murlidhar Vaishnav, Aged About 29
Years, B/c Vaishnav, R/o C/o: Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri
Jaita Ramji, Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur (B.C. Code
6A440001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
(3 of 30)
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7787 / 2018
Ramniwas Saini S/o Shri Dharma Ram Saini, Aged About 36 Years,
B/c Saini, R/o C/o: Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji,
Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Bagra, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.
7. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7788 / 2018
Babu Lal Gayri S/o Shri Nand Lal Gayari, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Gayri, R/o Hanuman Chowk, Maharaj Ki Khedi, District Udaipur-
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(4 of 30)
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7790 / 2018
Ashik Ali S/o Shri Sohrab Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 257,
Badhe Khan Ki Dhani, Bahla, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7792 / 2018
Komal D/o Shri Radha Vallabh W/o Shri Bhartendra Pandya, Aged
About 26 Years, B/c Pandya, R/o Village Post Bhuwasa, Tehsil
Ganoda, District Banswara- (Raj.).
(5 of 30)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7793 / 2018
Tulsa Ram S/o Shri Vehna Ram Meghwal, Aged About 34 Years,
B/c Meghwal, R/o Meghwalo Ki Dhani, Nakoda, Tehsil Sindhari,
District Barmer-(Raj.) (B.C. Code 68560001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(6 of 30)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7794 / 2018
Dhan Raj Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 26
Years, B/c Meena, R/o C/o: Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri
Jaita Ramji, Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur (B.C. Code
6A430001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7795 / 2018
Mahavir Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 23 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Village Rohidi, Post Rohidi, Tehsil Gadra Road, District
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
(7 of 30)
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7796 / 2018
Sanwarmal Saini S/o Shri Jagdev Saini, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Saini, R/o C/o: Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji,
Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager., (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. Chief/ Branch Manager, SBI Bagra, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.
7. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7797 / 2018
Padma Ram, S/o Shri Kewa Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Post Suwada, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
(8 of 30)
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7798 / 2018
Suresh Dhobi, S/o Shri Keshar Lal Dhobi, Aged About 29 Years,
B/c Dhobi, R/o C/o Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji,
Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur (B.C. Code 69830001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7799 / 2018
Kapil Joshi S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, B/c
Joshi, R/o Village Post 621- Nehru Nagar, Chouhatan, Tehsil
Chouhatan, District Barmer- (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
(9 of 30)
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7800 / 2018
Babulal Jat S/o Shri Ram Narayan Jat, Aged About 26 Years, C/o-
Kawraram Choudhary, Basni Lacha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur-
(Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7801 / 2018
Kalyan Singh, S/o Shri Deravar Singh, Aged About 28 Years, B/c
Rajput, Resident of Village Post Gora, Tehsil Sedwa, District
Barmer- (Raj.).
(10 of 30)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager., (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7803 / 2018
Deepa Ram S/o Shri Bijla Ram, Aged About 36 Years, B/c
Meghwal, Resident of Nayapura, Village Post Padroo, Tehsil
Siwana, District Barmer- (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(11 of 30)
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7804 / 2018
Ratan Singh Rajput S/o Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
B/c Rajput, R/o Village & Post Varda, Tehsil Badgaon, District
Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7805 / 2018
Ridmal Singh S/o Shri Heer Singh, B/c Sodha, R/o Village Prem
Singh Ki Dhani (Chohtan), Post Chohtan, Tehsil Chohtan, District
Barmer. (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
(12 of 30)
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7806 / 2018
Navab Khan, S/o Shri Sajjan Khan, Aged About 25 Years, B/c
Muslin, R/o Village Post Agasadi, Tehsil Gadra Road, District
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7811 / 2018
Ram Gopal S/o Shri Bheru Lal Meghwal, Aged About 32 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o C/O: Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji,
Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur B.C. Code 6C230001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
(13 of 30)
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7812 / 2018
Gopal Lal Sain S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sain, Aged About 34 Years,
B/c Sain, R/o C/o: Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji,
Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. Chief/ Branch Manager, SBI Bagra, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.
7. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7813 / 2018
Madan Raj S/o Shri Basara Ram, Aged About 39 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Village Post Ramsar, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer-
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
(14 of 30)
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7814 / 2018
Bal Singh, S/o Shri Sang Singh, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Rajput,
Resident of Gumane Ka Tala, Tehsil Chouhatan, District Barmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7816 / 2018
Megh Raj Ninama, S/o Shri Moti Lalji Bheel, Aged About 25 Years,
B/c Bheel, R/o Village Padoli Gordhan, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(15 of 30)
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7819 / 2018
Jasvindar Choudhary S/o Shri Taja Ram Choudhary, Aged About
28 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Post Kharda Bharat Singh, Tehsil
Gida, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. Chief/Branch Manager, SBI Bagra, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.
7. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7823 / 2018
(16 of 30)
Kushala Ram, S/o Shri Kharta Ram, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Near Vodaphone Tower, Baitu Bhopji, Tehsil Baitu, District
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7824 / 2018
Ramesh Kumar, S/o Shri Dana Ram, Aged About 28 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Jivaniyon Ki Dhani, Gram Post Barasan, Tehsil
Gudamalani, District Barmer- (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
(17 of 30)
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7826 / 2018
Man Singh Meena, S/o Shri Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 29
Years, B/c Meena, At Present Resided At C/o: Kanwara Ram
Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji, Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District
Jodhpur (B.C. Code 6A350001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7827 / 2018
Rajendra Singh Gurjar, S/o Shri Veer Singh Gurjar, Aged About 28
Years, B/c Gurjar, At Present Resided At C/O: Kanwara Ram
Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji, Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District
Jodhpur (B.C. Code 6A340001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
(18 of 30)
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7828 / 2018
Shanti Lal Meena, S/o Shri Rup Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years,
B/c Meena, R/o Village Hingladh, Tehsil Arnod, District Pratapgarh-
(Raj.). (BC Code 67560001)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7830 / 2018
Jas Ram Gurjar, S/o Shri Hari Narayan Gurjar, Aged About 25
Years, B/c Gurjar, At Present Resided At C/O: Kanwara Ram
Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji, Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District
Jodhpur (B.C. Code 6A340001).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
(19 of 30)
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7831 / 2018
Bhanwari Devi S/o Shri Lichhanman Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
B/c Jat, R/o Dioniyon Ki Dhani, Rateu, Tehsil Baitu, District
Barmer-(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614.
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7832 / 2018
Surendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain, Aged About 23
Years, B/c Jain, At Present Resided At C/o: Kanwara Ram
Choudhary S/o Shri Jaita Ramji, Basni Lachha, Manaklao, District
Jodhpur (B.C. Code 6A360001).
----Petitioner
(20 of 30)
Versus
1. The State Bank of India Through Its Chairman, Corporate
Centre, Navy Mumbai, 400614.
2. The Chief General Manager, (FI & MF) Corporate Centre, Navy
Mumbai, 400614
3. The General Manager, (F.I.) State Bank of India, C- Scheme,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy General Manager, (FI & GS Deptt.) Administrative
and Business Unit, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. The Deputy General Manager, (B&O) Administrative and
Business Office, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6. The Regional Manager, Regional Commercial Office-III,
Administration Office, A-23, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) :Petitioner present in person
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Manager (Law) SBI
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 31/05/2018
1. The defects stand overruled.
2. The lawyers are not appearing due to abstention from judicial work.
3. On an examination of the pleadings and the averments made in the writ petition, as also looking into the materials available on record and after hearing the parties present in person, this Court finds that the controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ashish Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4304 / (21 of 30) 2018 decided on 31.05.2018), relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"57. This Court finds that the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6462/2017 (Nitin Kumar Agrawal & Ors. Vs. The State Bank of India & Ors.), whereby the writ petitions were dismissed as having become infructuous, however, with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate remedies against the future action, putting their arrangement to peril, in accordance with law, as also the fact that the adjudication in the earlier writ petition was not done on merits of the case, the same cannot be said to operate as res judicata in the present case.
58. In Noharlal Verma v.
Di
s
tt. Co , reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that the earlier application preferred by the appellant therein became infructuous; the earlier application was not decided on merits, and therefore, this does not operate as res judicata. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:
"18. So far as res judicata is concerned, in our opinion, the appellant is right in submitting that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the application filed by the appellant was barred by res judicata. It is clear from the facts stated hereinabove that the application was filed by the appellant to the Joint Registrar, Raipur. It was pending. Meanwhile, however, District Bastar had its own Registry and hence, an application was submitted to the District Registrar, Bastar. The application preferred by the appellant to the Joint Registrar, Raipur, in the circumstances, became infructuous. It was not decided on merits. As per settled law, such decision does not operate as res judicata. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the application on the ground of res judicata. That part of the order passed by the Tribunal was, therefore, rightly not approved by the High Court".
59. The question pertains to the livelihood, and thus, the rights of the petitioners to agitate the action, diminishing their rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be denied, while availing the (22 of 30) remedy of writ, which obviously is available to the petitioners in such circumstances.
60. In Olga Tellis & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following precedent law:-
"32. . . . . . . . .The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. . . . . . . . So unimpeachable is the evidence of the nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live: only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by Douglas, J. in Baksey[347 US 442, 472 : 98 L Ed 829 (1954)] that the right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. "Life", as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois [(1877) 94 US 113] means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. This observation was quoted with approval by this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1964) (23 of 30) 1 SCR 332 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329] ."
61. In the present case, the respondents have denied the employer-employee relationship; but by way of Scheme, the RBI, which is the Apex Institution of Banking in this country, under a common policy approach regarding banking services, has taken an initiative, in the related exercise, for increasing the banking outreach and ensuring greater financial inclusions, which has to be followed by all Nationalized and Private Banks of the country.
62. The significant policy decisions were also taken and the Banks were accordingly permitted to engage Business Correspondents on certain terms and conditions, after adopting a regular selection process, which includes an advertisement and also laying down of the eligibility conditions therefor.
63. The Business Correspondents were of two types, namely, (i) Corporate Business Correspondents and (ii) Individual Business Correspondents, and the aim of having Individual Business Correspondents was to reach to the far flung areas where a branch or regular employee of the Bank may not prove to be financially viable. The Individual Business Correspondents were engaged by the Banks so as to target the rural folk and the companies were permitted with the intention of further intensifying the process of outreaching the banking services to the remotest and unbankable areas. The terms and conditions for engaging the petitioners clearly reveals employer-employee relationship between the Business Correspondents and the Banks.
64. The eligibility of individuals like retired persons, owners of kirana store/medical/Fair Price shops would not have any affect on the nature of work performed by the petitioners being the contractual appointees, as the various relevant documents indicate that the petitioners have been given appointment on the conditions, which have been stipulated by the Bank itself.
65. As far as entitlement of the Business Correspondents to work in that capacity is concerned, the same is part of the contractual condition to strengthen their hands for completing the tasks of making inroads through the rung of citizens, who are otherwise not accessible to the mainstream banking.
(24 of 30)
66. On a careful reading of the RBI Guidelines, it is revealed that the same have been issued under Section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and such Guidelines are supposed to be a guiding factor to the Banks of this country, and thus, were to be applied by the Banks without any violation thereof.
67. The national spectrum of Banking, which has a statutory influence of the RBI, clearly reflects that the Business Correspondents were required, in terms of the policy of Banking, to reach the last line of the citizens, who may be inaccessible due to rural existence, geographical conditions, economically under developed clusters, far flung areas and other difficult to banking zones.
68. The rising trend/pattern of the State functionaries hiring and using contractual/ad hoc employees for carrying out perennial jobs for years altogether and dispensing with their services like completely disposable commodities, amounts to an unfair dilution and negation of the precious constitutional guarantees. No State can be allowed to violate inviolable fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
69. The precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioners clearly indicate the settled legal proposition that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, unless their conduct and performance is under the cloud. Such contractual employees could be replaced by regularly selected employees by the employer, and further, if the scheme or project, in which such employees are working itself comes to an end.
70. The precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Raja s than Vs. Kusum Devi & Ors. [D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1231/2017 decided on 20.03.2018], which has been referred by this Court in the judgment rendered in Mahendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and as reproduced hereinabove, throw much weight behind the petitioners.
71. In the instant case, the employers falling under the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India have clearly deployed a mechanism to exploit the masses of this country by undermining their right to livelihood by imposing conditions, which admittedly, do not provide for the (25 of 30) protection and strength of a regular appointment, but even take away the basic protection available to contractual employees. The law is now well settled that until the contractual appointment continues to fulfill the task, for which such contractual appointees have been appointed and the work is being done satisfactorily, the rights of such contractual appointees normally need to be protected to this extent, unless they are being sought to be replaced by regularly selected employees, or the project/scheme under which they are working itself comes to an end.
72. The present case in hand is not a case where the work being discharged by the Business Correspondents has to come an end, but the only thing is that they are being placed under the corporates, which would only render them exposed to the exploitative tendencies of a corporate entity, particularly in light of the fact that the corporate entity itself would not have any stake in the institution, and thus, the institutional welfare of its employees would never be its prerogative.
73. The impugned action of the respondents also runs contrary to the very purpose, for which the Business Correspondents were employed. Admittedly, the accessibility and reach of banking services is far from adequate in the rural and remote areas. The push of government policies to expand the net of banking services and dispensing benefits/grants/subsidies through the banking channel, has given a new impetus to the purpose and role of Business Correspondents. The reality and challenges of rural/remote areas have not diminished in any manner. The Corporates, who as a model operate on considerations of profitability and commercial viability, cannot even be expected to further the cause of banking access to all in remote/rural areas. The States functionaries cannot be allowed to shun their constitutional responsibilities and goals, while continuing to operate as biggest players in a particular segment.
74. This Court also finds that the judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents do not apply in the present facts and circumstances, as the writ jurisdiction is a wide jurisdiction and cannot be ousted merely on the ground that conditions, which have been laid down in respect of the contractual appointment, were such that the employer Banks can wash away their hands from their responsibility to take work from the Business Correspondents in their direct supervision. Even if there is a risk factor, then also the Banks have to find ways to minimize those risks; however, they cannot ride over the shoulders of the poor Business (26 of 30) Correspondents to bring them in the corporate arena, as the recent examples have shown that the corporate houses are not fully risk proof and they have caused fabric damage to the banking system of this country, more than the one caused by the individuals.
75. Thus, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that to plug the loopholes and risks in the individual Business Correspondents, the corporatization of the same is being permitted, does not hold good, as it is common knowledge that some of the corporate houses have caused huge damages to the fabric of the banking structure of this country at the cost of a poor man and the society at large.
76. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents regarding non-existence of the employer-employee relationship, in the precedent law so cited, would not hold good in the present set of facts and circumstances, as in these cases the Banks have admittedly issued advertisement and invited the petitioners to work as Business Correspondents with the Banks on particular terms and conditions, which include eligibility criteria as well.
77. The petitioners in this case are not seeking regularization in the public employment. The petitioners are merely seeking that their services may not be transferred to the corporate entities, as it would defeat the purpose of their employment, create scope for exploitation and would render the petitioners very weak and their right to livelihood would also be denuded of fundamental protections.
78. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has harped upon the alternative remedy, but this Court has seen that there is consistency in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time that every case where right to livelihood is at stake, the same calls for intervention in the writ jurisdiction.
79. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Prabal Kumar Kulshre s tha and 58 Others Vs. Bank of India and 3 Others (supra), although reproduced hereinabove, but reiteration of the relevant portion thereof would be apposite, and the same reads as under:-
" From the materials which have been brought on record before this Court, it is apparent that the respondent bank has not (27 of 30) examined functioning of the petitioners, individually, with reference to the work performed in the context of the provisions contained in the guidelines. No reasons have been assigned, and therefore, the conclusion drawn in the instructions that petitioners' working was not in accordance with the guidelines, is not liable to be sustained. Petitioners' contention that only in Agra Region such order has been passed, has also not been taken into consideration.
Learned counsel for the respondent bank faced with the aforesaid situation submits that instead of keeping the matter pending, it would be appropriate to dispose off the writ petition with liberty to respondents to act in accordance with law.
In the absence of any reasons and findings returned in the order, holding petitioners' working not to be in accordance with the guidelines framed, the action of respondents, terminating their engagement, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.3.2016 and 18.3.2016 are set aside. It shall, however, be open for the respondent bank to proceed, afresh, in accordance with law."
80. It would also be apt to reiterate the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gulamrasul Habibhai Badi & Ors.Vs. State Bank of India (SBI) & Ors. (supra), and the same reads as under:
"15. From the aforesaid decisions, it can be said that if the appointments which have not been made according to the constitutional scheme are regularised, that would amount to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of the constitutional scheme adopted by the people of this country. If the person is not appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, such appointment cannot be regularized.
16. However, at this stage, we would like to clarify that in fact the present petitioners are not at all employees of the respondent-bank. As discussed hereinabove, they have entered into an agreement with the respondent-bank as a service provider for running business on the commission basis. There is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and respondent-bank and therefore there is no question of claiming regularization or similar pay scale which the (28 of 30) regular employees of the respondent-bank are getting."
The said judgments cannot be read against the present petitioners, as it is clear that the petitioners do not fall under the class of 'Service Provider', but have been specifically brought into the contractual regime of employees to profess the banking amongst the underprivileged and inaccessible class of economy, and thus, they cannot be denied their right to continue as Business Correspondents - until the project continues and until their performance is found to be satisfactory or unless they are being sought to be replaced by regular selected employees - simply on the ground that they were only service providers.
81. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners to this extent that the Service Provider is a person, who provide requisite services - lock, stock and barrel - on being paid, whereas in this case, the employer is paying an amount to the petitioners for getting several works done, which include opening the accounts, financial transaction, getting FDRs, RDs payment under the Atal Pension Yojana, recovery of loan amount, payment with regard to the government project, opening of Jan Dhan Accounts, etc., and thus, the same are the banking jobs, which on behalf of the Banks, are being conducted by the petitioners as Business Correspondents, and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners are merely service providers to the Bank, as in fact, they are providing banking services to the customers on behalf of the Banks.
82. The respondents have failed to show even a single reason as to why the petitioners are being placed in the hands of the corporate companies and as to what was the need of taking such action so as to bring them under such arena, more particularly, when the petitioners are providing satisfactory services to the respondents.
83. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners' services are not satisfactory and they are not able to perform the tasks, which have been assigned to them by the respondents.
84. The respondents have further failed to satisfy this Court, on the strength of the relevant RBI Guidelines, as to the function of the Business Correspondents, like the present petitioners, which could be performed by the corporate entities in a better way.
85. The individuals having the requisite skills and vast experience (29 of 30) in the related field were required to utilize their skills and experience to outreach the banking services to those areas, where the banking system would ordinarily not even be existing, which is a daunting task, and the same is being performed by the petitioners to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents, and thus, when the petitioners are providing satisfactory services to the respondents, they should not be saddled with the unfair practice of putting them in the hands of corporates, which could be exploiting these employees, as the corporates do not have direct stakes in these employees, which would encourage them to provide satisfactory remuneration and working conditions to them.
86. The network of Business Correspondents has been created by the RBI Guidelines and circulars issued from time to time. This Court finds that the constitutional mandate requires the relevance of the various communications and the policy in vogue as reflected in the RBI circulars need to be strengthened, lessening the gap between have and have nots, so as to achieve the desired goals to outreach the banking services to the areas, where the banking services do not even exist.
87. In light of the aforesaid observations and the aforementioned precedential backdrop, the present petitioners need to be protected, and therefore, the present writ petitions are allowed to the extent that while quashing and setting aside the action of the respondents of corporatization of the present petitioners as Individual Business Correspondents, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners as Business Correspondents directly with them, as they are continuing for last many years and the respondents are also directed not to terminate the services of the petitioners so as to replace them by another set of contractual employees or Corporate Business Correspondents, unless there is a performance deficit on the part of the petitioners."
4. In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petitions stand allowed in the same terms.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. sudheer (30 of 30)