Telangana High Court
Ptm Gopala Krishna vs State Bank Of India Sbi on 20 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 8538 OF 2018
O R D E R:
Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of M/s Pearl Law Associates for the respondents.
2. The case of petitioners is that Respondent No.4 - State Bank of India acquired five Associate Banks viz: (1) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2) State Bank of Hyderabad, (3) State Bank of Mysore, (4) State Bank of Patiala, and (5) State Bank of Travancore as per said Gazette Notifications dated 22.02.2017 which were to come into force from 01.04.2017. It was mentioned in Clause 7 of the said Notification that Employees of the Transferor Banks (Associate Banks) shall become, from the effective date, an officer of, as the case may be, of Transferee Bank (State Bank of India) and shall hold his / her office of service therein on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Central Board of the Transferee Bank (State Bank of India) and shall continue to work in accordance there with. However, no terms and conditions of service were approved by the Central Board, even though the effective date of the operation of Gazette Notification was 01.04.2017. Two days 2 prior thereto, i.e. on 29.03.2017, Respondent No. 2 - Chief General Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai issued Option Letters to all the employees and officers of the Associate Banks asking them to either accept the terms and conditions contained in the Option Letters by exercising option "A" or "B" or discontinue their services by exercising option "C". In other words, employees were told either to accept Options A or B or resign immediately by exercising option C. It is stated that this so-called option letter is unknown to service jurisprudence. A permanent employee or officer cannot be forced to resign if he or she does not like the new terms and conditions imposed by the Management. Moreover, the so-called offer of Employment Letter dated 29.03.2017 does not refer to any terms and conditions of service approved by the Central Board of the Transferee Bank i.e. State Bank of India. Therefore, it can be seen that Respondent No. 2 has no authority to unilaterally issue offer of employment letter which are not sanctioned or approved by the Central Board of the Transferee Bank. Respondent No.2 by himself cannot frame service conditions, as service conditions have to be approved only by the Central Board of the Transferee Bank. As per Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 3 Act'), it is only the SBI which may appoint officers or other employees. The bank acts through the Central Board as defined under Section 2 (b). As per Section 17, the management of SBI vests with the "Central Board" and not the "Chief General Manager (HR)" i.e. Respondent No.2. Section 19 deals with composition of Board. As per Section 19 (a), "Central Board"
consists of Chairman to be appointed by the Central Government. Section 19 (b) provides such number of Managing Directors, not exceeding four. Section 19 (ca) : one director, from among the employees of the State Bank, who are workmen, to be appointed by the Central Government in the manner provided in the rules made under this Act. Section 19 (cb) : one director, from among such of the employees of the State Bank, as are not workmen, to be appointed by the Central Government in the manner provided in the rules made under this Act. Section 19 (d) : not less than two and not more than six directors to be nominated by the Central Government, from among persons having special knowledge of the working of co- operative institutions and of rural economy or experience in commerce, industry, banking or finance. Section 19 (e) : one director to be nominated by the Central Government. Thus, it can be seen that Respondent No.2 is not a member of the 4 Central Board and he alone cannot frame the terms and conditions of the employees.
It is stated further that a reading of the options under Clause No.3 shows that the Employees of Associate Banks have been subjected to hostile discrimination. Clause 3
(b) of the Annexure to offer letter, clearly says that Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers in SBI will get four additional increments, whereas Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers of Associate Banks will not get those additional increments. In other words, there is clear and blatant discrimination in the matter of increments as far as Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers of Associate Banks are concerned. Even, these four increments also have the effect of 4 years only. Similarly, Clause 3 (c) makes it blatantly clear that Special Compensatory Allowance (SCA) and Special Balancing Allowance (SBA) paid to the officers of SBI will not be made applicable to the officers of the erstwhile five Associate Banks which were acquired by State Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2017. Clause 3 (d), the provisions of officiating allowance as applicable to the employees of SBI will also be applicable to the employees of the Associate Banks. Thus, it can be seen that the Respondent No.2 has indulged in gross and blatant discrimination. While Clauses 3 5
(b) and (c) discriminate against the employees of the erstwhile 5 Associate Banks and the employees of the SBI, there is parity in respect of Clause 3 (d) relating to officiating pay.
It is also stated, all the Gazette Notifications dated 22.02.2017 are identical. Clause 7 of the Gazette Notification clearly indicates that after the effective date, permanent and regular employees of Transferor Banks (Associate Banks) shall become employees of the Transferee Bank (State Bank of India). In other words, there cannot be any discrimination between the employees of the erstwhile Associate Banks and those who (State Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Indore) are already in service in the SBI. Whereas, option letter dated 29.03.2017 issued by Respondent No.2 is totally and openly discriminating against the erstwhile employees of Associate Banks on several issues. It is stated that employees from five Associate Banks should have become employees of the SBI cannot lose their birth marks. Upon integration into common cadre, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the following judgments:
I. Roshan Lal Tandon V. Union of India 1 II. The State of Jammu and Kashmir V. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa 2 III. Manmad Reddy V. Chandra Prakash Reddy 3 IV. Sivaguru v. State of Tamil Nadu 4 1 1967 SCC ONLine SC 70 2 (1974) 1 SCC 19 3 (2010) 3 SCC 314-B. 4 (2013) 7 SCC 335-S 6 V. Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab 5 It is also stated that Clause 9 of the Gazette Notification prohibits employees of the Transferor Banks (Associate Banks) from approaching any Court, Tribunal or other Authority which means the right of an employee for redressal of grievance has been taken away by Clause-9 of the Notification dated 22-02-2017. Any such Clause prohibiting an employee from approaching any Court or Tribunal or other Authority would be clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the said Clause has to be struck down suo motu.
It is also stated that previously, the SBI had acquired State Bank of Saurashtra on 23-08-2008 and State Bank of Indore on 28-08-2010. While acquiring State Bank of Saurashtra, the terminal benefits, pension, gratuity, and Bank's Contribution to Provident Fund (with interest), were given to them. It is apt to notice the following:
Section 2 (a) of the Terms & Conditions of Service Applicable to Officer Employees of State Bank of Saurashtra after acquisition of State Bank of Saurashtra by State Bank of India is as under:
5
Civil Appeal Nos. 17529-17530 of 2017 7 " All SBI terminal benefits are being made available to SBS Employees for the sake of clarity, SBS employees will get pension, gratuity and Bank's contribution to Provident Fund (with interest) as available to SBI employees from their respective date of joining in the case of directly recruited officers/ date of confirmation in respect of promotee officers in SBS".
Similarly, while acquiring State Bank of Indore, the same terminal benefits, pension, gratuity, and Bank's Contribution to Provident Fund (with interest), were given to them as mentioned in Section 2 (a) of the Terms & Conditions of Service Applicable to Officer Employees of State Bank of Indore (SBIN) after acquisition of SB Indore by SBI. Therefore, the officers of the Associate Banks had a legitimate expectation that SBI would extend similar benefits to them based on past practice.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India 6, held that, in the aforesaid facts the Group Housing Societies were entitled to 'legitimate expectation' of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have any legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following judgments: 6
(1992) 4 SCC 477 8
1. Punjab Communications Limited v. Union of India 7.
2. Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan 8
3. State of Jharkhand v. Brahmaputra Metalics Limited, Ranchi 9
4. Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma 10 It is the specific case of petitioners that Respondents have not denied extending the benefits to the officers of State Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Indore.
Therefore, it must be taken to be a past practice.
3. Petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 to receive the documents which demonstrate that they are being actively discriminated against. They filed payslip of an officer belonging to Manager cadre by name Shi Rajesh Laxminarayan Gupta for April 2024 of erstwhile State Bank of Saurashtra which shows that an erstwhile officer of State Bank Saurashtra, now working in SBI is getting Special Compensatory Allowance of Rs.450/- and Special Balancing Allowance of Rs. 1,775/-. Whereas, it is seen from the payslip of an officer belonging to same Manager cadre i.e. petitioner No.3 of erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad now working in SBI is not getting the above said allowances. Similarly, Sri P. Srinivas Goutham, presently working as Assistant General Manager, erstwhile officer of State Bank of Indore now working in State Bank of India who was appointed 7 (1999) 4 SCC 727 8 (2003) 3 SCC 485 9 (2023) 10 SCC 634 10 Civil Appeal Nos. 7256-7259,dated 09.07.2024 9 in the year 1988 has got to his credit, the Bank's contribution of Provident Fund as on date is now amounting to Rs.38,30,571/- (Rupees thirty-eight lakhs thirty thousand five hundred and seventy-one only). Sri Satyanarayana Lankisetti, presently working as Assistant General Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad now working in SBI who was appointed on 05.07.1987 has got to his credit Bank's contribution of Provident Fund as on date at Rs. 11,67,701/-. The erstwhile officers of five Associate Banks acquired by SBI on 01.04.2017 have been deprived Bank's Contribution of Provident Fund to the tune of several lakhs of rupees each.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the contention of Respondent bank that the erstwhile officers of Associate Banks who are now absorbed into State Bank of India have to be treated as "fresh officers" with fresh terms and conditions, is impermissible. The status of employees of five Associate Banks is to be treated as "CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT" and more so when SBI is calculating Pension and Gratuity with effect from the initial appointment of officers of respective 5 Associate Banks and calculating the Bank's Contribution of Provident Fund with effect from 01.04.2017, i.e., the date of acquisition by State Bank of India is not tenable, as 10 Pension, Gratuity and Bank's Contribution of Provident Fund are "DEFERRED WAGES" and payable on the date of Superannuation of Officers. While the erstwhile officers of the State Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Indore are getting their pension, gratuity and Bank's Contribution to Provident Fund from their date of initial appointment, whereas the erstwhile officers of the remaining 5 Associate Banks have been deprived of Bank's contribution of Provident Fund with effect from the date of their initial appointment when they joined respective 5 Associate Banks till the effective date of acquisition. They are getting only Bank's contribution of Provident Fund from 01-04-2017. In other words they were made to forego the erstwhile Bank's contribution of Provident Fund component.
5. On the other hand, the case of respondents on the point of locus of petitioners is that, Petitioner No. 1 was proceeded with a Disciplinary Inquiry by the transferee bank for the gross misconduct committed by him in the course of employment with the Transferor Bank during which, it was proved that he committed misconduct qua the charges and was imposed with the punishment of removal from service and the appeal having been dismissed, he preferred Writ Petition No. 13041 of 2020. This Court by order dated 03.05 2024 directed 11 the bank to consider to impose any lesser punishment than that of dismissal and removal; then SBI preferred Writ Appeal No. 819 of 2024 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 09.09.2024. Considering the said order, the Disciplinary Authority, having independently reviewed the earlier decision of removal from service, imposed the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" by order dated 13.11.2024 which was communicated to Petitioner No.1, who, in the meanwhile, filed Review Application in Writ Appeal through another counsel questioning the very submissions made on his behalf by his earlier counsel who submitted that the Bank can also impose the punishment of Compulsory Retirement stating that such an instruction was not given by Petitioner to his earlier counsel, but the Bank has denied such a contention as the very Petitioner was present in the course of such submission by his earlier counsel in the Court Hall. The Division Bench was reported as to the decision taken pursuant to the orders of the Learned Single Judge affirmed by the Learned Division Bench and having recorded the submission, the Division Bench dismissed the Review Petition. Thus, the order of Compulsory Retirement attained finality. It is not out of place to mention that Compulsory Retirement, a major punishment, is lesser than the punishment of dismissal and 12 removal from service in law as the same is not stigmatic, albeit the terminal benefits and pension are the same. Since petitioner No.1 has not exercised his option while joining the services of SBI, as envisaged by the offer letter, he will be paid the terminal benefits of State Bank of India from the effective date. As regards the status, in the light of the disciplinary action taken as per Regulations of the Transferor Bank, he has no locus to challenge the merger scheme or terms and conditions approved by the Board of Directors of Transferor Banks and the Central Board of the Transferee Bank and the Central Government and Reserve Bank of India.
6. As regards the locus of Petitioner No 4 - a registered Trade Union under Trade Union Act, 1926 which is governed by the Bye-Laws framed under the Statute, as per Bye-Law No. 28 as to the Legal Proceedings by which the Federation being a Corporate Body may sue or be sued in the name of its "General Secretary" of "All India State Bank Officers Federation" or in the name of any other Person so authorized by the Executive Committee of AISBOF in respect of its own rights and interest and obligations. The writ affidavit on behalf of Petitioner No. 4 in the cause title was stated to be represented by its Vice-President Harshavardhan Madabhushi, AISBOF and 13 the subsequent affidavits filed by way of reply/Interlocutory Applications by the other person in the capacity of Vice- President, did not produce any resolution of Executive Committee in proof of such of the All India State Bank Officers Federation located at Chennai as then was having registered Office at Chennai which is essentially to be represented by the General Secretary of such Executive Committee Respondents place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prabhat v. Barkatulla University, Bhopal 11 which declined to entertain a Writ Petition filed on behalf of the Association by a person who was not authorized to initiate the legal process on behalf of the Association. The Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterating the ratio in Prabhat's case (supra), in the case of Madhya Pradesh Sikshak Sangh through its Joint Secretary against the State of Madhya Pradesh was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition and further in United Private Hospitals Directors Association through its Vice- President was pleased to dismiss at the threshold such Writ Petitions since not been authorized by the registered/unregistered incorporated or not bodies.
7. With regard to Petitioners 2 and 3, who are the employees of erstwhile SBH, did not indicate at all as to what 11 ILR 2011 MP 1692 14 options they have exercised so as to exhibit their grievance. In other words, it is lack of espousing a cause so as to adjudicate the issues. It is stated from the records of Respondent Bank that Petitioner No.2 retired on 30.05.2023 and opted the terminal benefits of State Bank of India, as per option A, in terms of which he would be entitled for Pension as of the SBI Pension, Bank's Contribution Provident Fund from the effective date i.e. 01.04.2017 and Statutory Gratuity as payable under Payment of Gratuity Act. Petitioner No. 3, on his superannuation, was paid terminal benefits as chosen by him and he is receiving pension as per his eligibility. Petitioners 2 and 3 in fact did not espouse any cause in their individual capacities nor the grievance on the touchstone of Article 14 or any right, and therefore the Writ Petition must fail on the above objections.
8. With regard to material contentions of petitioners, learned counsel for respondent bank submits that it is necessary to refer to the following aspects of law and facts which fundamentally estop petitioners by their conduct who having opted pension in the place of contributory provident fund which terminal benefit and service gratuity alone were in place for all Public Sector Banks including Associate Banks of SBI. 15 The Pension Regulations introduced in 1995 at the request of various employees' Unions and Association of such Banks to extend pension scheme to them were accepted by the Central Government which was intended for all the employees, and an option to be exercised by the employees of Public Sector Banks and Associate Bank was mandated as PF optee or Pension optee and substantial employees have opted for Pension and thereby, forgone the entire employers contribution made towards PF which scheme alone was in place and whoever have opted, have consented for return of the employers' contribution and accordingly, the amount lying with the Trustees was transferred to Pension Fund created Under the Scheme by each Bank.
9. All India Bank Employees' Pension Regulations was enacted during 1995, which was made applicable to all Public Sector Banks including Associate Banks of State Bank, which, however, does not apply to SBI as already there was scheme for the employees of SBI as to payment of pension. After enactment of Pension Regulations 1995, the employees of Public Sector Banks and Associate Banks of SBI (Except SBI) were entitled to exercise option either to choose for Pension OR Contributory Provident Fund. All Public Sector Banks including Associate Banks of State Bank were extended the option to opt for either 16 pension under Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 OR Contributory Provident Fund as hitherto available to them. Terminal Benefits in respect of Employees of all Public Sector Banks including Associate Banks of State Bank before introduction of Pension Regulations of 1995 are:
i) Contributory Provident Fund,
ii) Service Gratuity (computation of gratuity is one
month salary for each completed year of Service)"
10. It is more pertinent to mention here that Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 while in the service of SBH, Pension Regulations 1995 were notified by the Central Government applicable to all the Nationalized Banks including Associate Banks of State Bank of India which were carved out on account of the demand from the employees of all Nationalized Banks including Associate Banks of State Bank of India as there was no provision for payment of Pension on superannuation and they opted for Pension with the Transferor Bank within the timeline prescribed. It is pertinent to note that if an employee opts for Pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, they may have to forego their entitlement for Bank's Contribution towards the Provident Fund which was in the place of Pension. Having exercised the right and by opting the Pension Scheme under the Pension Regulations 1995 and foregone the amounts paid by 17 the employer/SBH towards the Bank's Contribution towards Provident Fund and transferred the Bank's Contribution to the Pension Fund created by the employer/SBH funds managed by the Trustees, petitioners 1, 2, and 3 are estopped now to contend that the benefit to be extended as is eligible by the SBI employees who were otherwise inherently entitled to receive both Bank's Contribution as well as employees Contribution at the time of superannuation.
11. It is submitted that the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund as to the employers contribution and the usual pension, however, is made applicable with effect from the date notified by the Central Government ie. 01.04.2017 from which date the employees of Associate Banks as per their option exercised is deemed to have joined the services of SBI, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be arbitrary or illegal
12. Learned Standing Counsel submit that as regards the challenge to the acquisition vide GSRs which have a statutory force having been approved by the Union Cabinet in consultation with the Regulator RBI and such identical challenges on earlier mergers/acquisitions of the Banks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have upheld such mergers/acquisitions which are akın legislative acts. He 18 draws the attention of this Court to relevant portions of the provisions contained in Section 35 of the 1955 Act.
" 35 State Bank May acquire the business of other banks -
(1) The State Bank may, with the sanction of the Central Government, and shall, if so directed by the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank, enter into negotiations for acquiring the business, including the assets and liabilities, of any banking institution (2) The terms and conditions relating to such acquisition, if agreed upon by the Central Board of the State Bank and the directorate or management of the banking institution concerned and approved by the Reserve Bank, shall be submitted to the Central Government for its sanction and that Government may by order in writing (hereafter in this section referred to as the order of sanction) accord its sanction thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument regulating the constitution of the banking institution concerned, the terms and conditions as sanctioned by the Central Government shall come into effect on the date specified by the Central Government in this behalf in the order of sanction and be binding upon the State Bank and the banking institution concerned as well as upon the shareholders (or, as the case may be, proprietors) and creditors of that banking institution (4) If for any reason the terms and conditions cannot come into effect on the date specified in the order of sanction, the Central Government may fix another suitable date for that purpose (5) On the date on which the terms and conditions as aforesaid come into effect the business and the assets and liabilities of the banking institution concerned as covered by the acquisition shall, by virtue, and in accordance with the provisions, of the order of sanction stand transferred to, and become respectively the business and the assets and liabilities of the State Bank (6) The consideration for the acquisition of the business and the assets and liabilities of any banking institution under this section may, if so agreed upon, be paid either in cash or by allotment of shares in the capital of the State Bank or partly in cash and partly by allotment of shares, and the State Bank may, for the purpose of any such allotment, increase, subject to the other provisions contained in this Act relating to the increase of capital, the capital of the State Bank by the issue of such number of shares as may be determined by the State Bank.
(7) Any business acquired under this section shall thereafter be carried on by the State Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Act, subject to such exemptions or modifications as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make in this 19 behalf in consultation with the Reserve Bank.Provided that no such exemption or modification shall be made so as to have effect for a period of more than seven years from the date of acquisition.
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or in any other law or in any agreement for the time being in force, on the acquisition of the business and the assets and liabilities of any banking institution under this section, no officer or other employee of that banking institution shall be entitled to any compensation to which he may be entitled under that Act or that other law or that agreement and no claim in respect of such compensation shall be entertained by any Court, Tribunal or other authority, if on his having accepted in writing an offer of employment by the State Bank on the terms and conditions proposed by it he has been employed in accordance with such terms and conditions."
Thus, under the above substantive provision of law, the acquisition has taken place which cannot be challenged on any count of whatsoever nature, as such the power conferred on Central Government, RBI and the State Bank of India is by virtue of Statute and all the acts done pursuant to the said Act are regarded as legislative acts which are very much within the frame work of the Act.
13. With regard to the claim of four additional increments which was provisioned for POs and TOs of SBI right from the Recruitment Notifications, unlike the notifications relating to recruitment of POs in subsidiary banks, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Banks Officers Association v. State Bank of India 12 which was moved challenging the parity in pay scales 12 (1998) 1 SCC 428 20 claiming terminal benefits/medical benefits and extra increments on par with such benefits available to the employees holding similar or equivalent ranks in the SBI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed as regards the establishment of SBI and the Subsidiary Banks under the relevant Acts and the difference between the employees of SBI and Subsıdıary Banks and the contention of the officers that they are on par with the employees of SBI was declined and upheld that the employees of the Subsidiary Banks are not entitled to claim the same benefits as that of employees of the SBI on the ground that they are not, in effect, the employees of the SBI. The further grievance of the employees of the Associate Banks that in respect of terminal/retiral benefits, the employees of the Subsidiary Banks are entitled to Provident Fund or Pension and to Service Gratuity and whereas the employees of the SBI are entitled to Provident Fund and Pension apart from Gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act and therefore the employees of the Subsidiary Banks should also be given Pension in addition to the terminal benefits and that the terminal benefits in a Subsidiary Banks are comparable to the terminal benefits in Nationalized Banks, where also there is an option between Pension or Contributory Provident Fund and the employees of a Nationalized Bank are entitled to Service 21 Gratuity or Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act which is the position in the Subsidiary Banks also. Looking at the comparison, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any merit in the contentions of Petitioners having found no discrimination. It is quite useful to refer to Para 19 of the aforesaid precedent which is relevant to appreciate the stand of the Respondent Bank.
" 19. With regard to pay scales, the grievance which has been made before us as of now, is only with regard to four increments which are given to the officers of the State Bank of India at the time of joining though the pay scales are the same. This is not done in the subsidiary banks. The State Bank of India has submitted that in order to attract suitable persons, looking to the scale of their operations and responsibilities involved, this has been done. The subsidiary banks are not in a comparable position. Nor are their scales of operation comparable to the State Bank of India. The responsibilities of their officers are not comparable in view of the extent of operations of the subsidiary banks. In these circumstances, if the State Bank of India has offered increments to persons joining the State Bank of India, the same cannot be given to the officers joining the subsidiary banks."
Though the Officers joining SBI and the Associate Banks, the pay scales are the same, the increments as offered by the SBI to its Officers (POS and TOs) with a view to attract the cream cannot be given to the Officers joining the Subsidiary Banks Therefore, their claim for extending four increments which were otherwise provided by the SBI to the POS and TOs has been declined by the Hon'ble Court. Such an issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be allowed to reiterated again and hit by doctrine of Resjudicata"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its concluding paragraph while referring to the grievances which centre around 22 the benefits, held that the employees of SBI and the Subsidiary Banks are not in a comparable position and that the benefits which were extended to the employees of the Subsidiary Banks are negotiated settlements with the Unions and Associations of their employees/officers and such benefits are conferred in accordance with the agreements between the unions of the employees and management of each bank and observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied in the case of claims of the officers of the Associate Bank.
14. Be that as it may, since the Scheme of Acquisition and Merger is statutory-based scheme having the force of law cannot be found fault with by an employee of the Transferor Bank or by the Transferee Bank as after all, the mergers and acquisitions are governed by a Statute, various incidence of service since necessarily have to be followed by the employer which have to be accepted by the willing employees who wish to continue the services in the Transferee Organization. The Order of Amalgamation of All the Associate Banks as to the Acquisition of All Associate Banks by the SBI and the Central Government having notified the same under the relevant GSR's (Government Statutory Rule) is a legislative one and such a policy of acquisition or the service conditions empowered to be made by 23 both the Transferor and Transferee Banks through its Boards cannot be simply challenged by an employee on assumptions and presumptions and when the identical challenges were made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Officers Associations invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32, though the challenges were prior to the acquisition/amalgamation/merger, the ratio decided, squarely applies to the present challenge.
15. It is useful to refer to the acquisition of State Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Indore by the SBI under similar orders vide GSR No. 589 (E) Ministry of Finance dated 13.08.2008 and vide GSR No. 638 (E) Ministry of Finance, dated 28 07.2010 which are having very same clauses like in the present GSRs, clauses 7 and 8 which were assailed before the Gujarat High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court and as regards the State Bank of Saurashtra, the High Court of Gujarat was pleased to dismiss the claim with respect to the challenge to the validity of acquisition, more particularly with respect to the claim for four increments which is being extended to the POs and TOs of SBI. The said orders were subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
24
16. In BT Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India 13, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of integration of different groups or cadres by introducing common seniority scheme in the larger interest on the basis of the recommendations of experts committees, it was held that individual cases of hardship and adverse effects will not render the scheme unconstitutional unless arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or mala fides are established and it was further held that the private interest of employees of public sector undertakings cannot override public interest and an effort has to be made to harmonize the two considerations and no scheme governing service matters can be fool-proof and some section or the other of employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the score of its expectations being falsified or remaining to be fulfilled and vested interest are prone to hold on their acquisitions and finally held that the administration circular/the office order and combined seniority list are not violative of the rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
17. In Tamilnadu Education Department v. State of Tamilnadu 14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the service jurisprudence, integration is a complicated 13 (1982) 2 SCC 7 14 (1983) 3 SCC 97 25 administrative problem wherein doing broad justice to many, bruises to a few cannot be ruled out. Some play in the joints even in some wobbling must be left to Government without forensic monitoring since the administration has been entrusted by the Constitution to the Executive, not to the Court. All life including the administrative life, involves experiment, trial and error but with the leading strings of Fundamental Rights, and, absent unconstitutional excesses, judicial correction is not right and it was also held that the Court is aware of the jurisdictional limitations and did not agree with the arguments that the courts can analyse such minutiae to fault the policy and quash the orders of the Government. It was further held that surely the policy is not static but it is dynamic; what weighed with the Government when Panchayat Institutions were amalgamated with the District Board Institutions might have been given in the light of experience or changed circumstances and that the Court cannot strike down a GO or a Policy merely because there is variation or contradiction.
18. In Indian Airlines Officers Association v. Indian Airlines Limited 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
" 39. Where it is seen that the authorities were alive to the service conditions of the Indian Airlines employees and had their future 15 (2007) 10 SCC 684 26 in mind also, the authorities were not bound to negotiate with the appellant Association before formulating the policy such policy which is framed without active negotiations with the appellant Association would not (for that reason alone) be rendered non est and would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness After all in ultimate policy which has been culled out, we do not see any arbitrariness, on the other hand we find the equities in between the Indian Airlines employees and SHOD employees to have been properly balanced and counterbalanced. The non-participation of the appellant Association, in our opinion, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case would not be fatal to the policy decision Where we have found the ultimate policy decision as also the principles on the basis of which said decision is taken to be blemishless, we would not choose to annihilate that decision and the principles on the sole ground that the appellant Union was not heard".
19. In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that in case of policy, the employees may suffer to certain extent, but such sufferings should be taken to be incidence of service. Therein, the Court observed as under:
" 48. Merely because the workmen may have protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, by regarding BALCO as a State, it does not mean that the erstwhile sole shareholder vız. Government had to give the workers prior notice of hearing before deciding to disinvest There is no principle of natural justice which requires prior notice and hearing to persons who are generally affected as a class by an economic policy decision of the Government If the abolition of a post pursuant to a policy decision does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution as held in State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar [(1976) 2 SCC 844: 1976 SCC (L&S) 336] on the same parity of reasoning, the policy of disinvestment cannot be faulted if as a result thereof the 16 (2002) 2 SCC 333 27 employees lose their rights or protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
20. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 39, this is not the case where the natural justice is brought in so as to hold that if the appellant association was not made a party to the discussion for policy making, such decision for making policy would be hit by the principles of natural justice and it was further held that the authorities were alive to the service conditions of the Indian Airlines and had their future in mind, the authorities are not bound to negotiate with the appellant association before formulating the policy and the same would not render the policy non-est. In para 40, it was opined that in case of policy, the employees may suffer to some extent, then such sufferings should be taken to be the incidence of service.
21. In Central Bank of India v. Madan Chandra Brahma 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in respect of the claim of the employee of the transferor bank which provides retirement age at 58 who sought to contend that the benefit of retirement as provided in the transferee bank to the persons who have joined in the bank before 19.07.1969 was negatived as the employee in the transferee bank is deemed to be 17 (2007) 8 SCC 294 28 recruited on the date of merger ie 29.08 1990. In para 12 of the judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to be treated on par with the employee of Central Bank of India is one thing, the right to insist that the employee must be deemed to have become employee of Central bank of India even before the amalgamation is another.
22. In Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association v. Union of India 18, a three-judge bench in para 59 held that the scope of judicial review on the policy decisions in the field of economy / economic policy decision / or the policy decisions having financial implications which affect the economy of the country are required to be considered. In para 60.1, it is observed that in the light of the consistent view that the Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with intricacies of trade and commerce and further that it is neither within domain of the Courts nor in the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a public policy is wise or whether a better public policy can be evolved and that wisdom and advisability of the economic policy are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review and economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a field where judges should not 18 (2021) 8 SCC 511 29 encroach upon very warily as judges are not experts in such matters.
23. It is not out of place to mention here that acquisition of Associate banks by the State Bank of India consisting of five banks was a policy and statutorily backed legislative act and the terms and conditions formulated as the power conferred on the Central Board which is conferred with the power to formulate the service conditions and allied matters which has a financial bearing on the Employer transferee bank. Further, the Central Board which consists of the Chairman of State Bank of India/Subsıdıary Banks and one of the Managing Directors of SBI who represent all the Associate Banks as their MD, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Nominee, Central Government Nominee and other nominees appointed by the Government of India and such Board is Statutory Board under Section 19 of the 1955 Act. It is not the grievance of petitioners that the pay and allowances as were drawn are affected and that all of them purporting to be representing the Transferor Banks namely Five Associate Banks, the officer strength of those Banks was at 25,355 and the award Staff of them was found at around 44,835 who did not exhibit any grievance and the officers of all these Banks through their Officers Federation through an 30 incompetent persons cannot challenge the Scheme on assumptions and presumptions.
24. In Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association (cited supra), in para 62, it is held that the problems of Government are practical ones and may Justify if they do not require, rough accommodation, illogical, if may be, and unscientific and what is the best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned and mere errors of Government are not subject to judicial review and it is only palpably arbitrary exercise which can be declared void. In para 66, while referring to the Judgement reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664, it was noted as observed in the said judgment that the Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction will not transgress into the field of policy decision. In para 77, it was held that the circulars of RBI given in the facts of the case are in the realm of the policy decision and if the relief sought for is granted, it would seriously affect the banking sector. The larger view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the ratio laid down consistently, the scheme of amalgamation of five associate banks in 2017 is in the wisdom of the Central Government and the Reserve bank of India. The transferor and the transferee banks in exercise of the powers conferred by the relevant statues namely State Bank of 31 India Act, 1955, State Bank Subsidiaries Act, 1959, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935 which is virtually a legislative act and the terms and conditions approved by the Central Board as provided by the acquisition proceedings which are quite transparent and fair and reasonable and all the officers of Associate Banks have exercised their options and joined as per their choice. Petitioners have no right to challenge the choice of exercise of options and it is impermissible to contend that the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund which was extended to employees of State Bank of Saurashtra and Indore with effect from their conformation in the Transferor Bank was in consonance with the terms approved by the Central Board with the permission of Central Government and RBI at the material time, and when such benefit is conferred in the present acquisition effective from 01.04.2017 cannot be assailed on the ground of arbitrariness or on the unsustainable ground of legitimate expectation as the present merger in the decision of the policy maker did not envisage which is outside of the realm of judicial review in the facts of the case
25. It is to be noted that at the time of earlier mergers of two associate banks, it was provided in the terms and 32 conditions of the transferor Associate Bank and what policy weighed in the mind of the administration about ten years ago is purely a policy decision and such a policy decision cannot be made to be applicable to subsequent acquisitions of the remaining Associate Banks which have merged at a time in 2017, as the object was to bring efficiency in the banks and for synergy in its operations.
26. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank referred to the Constitution Bench judgement in Roshan Lal TAndon's case (supra) relied on by petitioners to state that the employees lose their birth marks upon integration into common cadre which dealt with the promotion of train examiners whose recruitment into a particular grade by way of direct recruitment and the promotees of artisans and when the recruits from both the sources to Graded were integrated into one class and no discrimination thereafter been made in favor of recruits from one source as against the recruits from the other source in the matter of higher promotions to Grade-C. The facts of the said case which are dealt with one organization ie Railways has no application at all and the subject case is a case of amalgamation/merger of smaller organizations into a bigger organization in terms of scheme approved by the Central 33 Government. In fact, the said judgment favors the stand of the respondent bank. In para 6 for the argument of the employee that the condition of the service was contractual and could not be altered thereafter to the prejudice of the employee and the Supreme Court held that the origin of Government service is contractual but once appointed to the post or office, the government servant acquires "Status" and his rights and obligations no longer determined by the consent of both the parties, but by the Statute/Statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Govt. In other words, the legal position of Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The emoluments of servant and his terms of services are governed by Statutory Rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is much more that purely a contractual relationship voluntarily entered between the parties, the duties of the Status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties the society has an interest. In the language of jurisprudence, the status is a constitution of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law but not by the agreements between the parties concerned. 34
27. The Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Shri Triloki Nath Khosa's case (supra), was sought to be relied on by petitioners to contend that the birth mark make an employee takes in an organization on account of subsequent classification loses such birth mark and continued to be governed by the new rule as applicable with the retrospective effect as to the benefits on par with the employees in the transferee. But the Supreme Court noting the contentions of the appellants, held that it is always open to the Government to classify its employees, so long as the classification is reasonable and has nexus with the object thereof, that a classification can't be held to infringe the equality clause unless it is palpably arbitrary and that if there are different source of recruitment, employees recruited from different sources can either be allowed different conditions of service and to continue to belong to different classes or the Government may integrate them into one class and that once the employees are integrated into one class, they cannot for purpose of promotion be classified again into two different classes on the basis of different classes existing at the time of recruitment. But, after integration into one class, the employees can, in the matter of promotion, be classified into different classes on the basis of any "intelligible differentia" as for example educational qualifications 35 which has a nexus with the object of classification namely efficiency in the post of promotion. It was held in the above constitutional Judgment that Roshanlal's case is no authority for the proposition that if direct recruits and promotees are integrated into one class, they can't be classified for the purpose of promotion on basis of other than the one they were drawn from different sources and in the instant case, classification rests fairly and squarely and the consideration of educational qualification that the graduates alone shall go to the higher post no matter whether they are appointed as Assistant Engineer directly or by promotion as there is no discrimination. It is not in relation to the source of recruitment and while referring to the case in Narsingh Rao rendered by the very same bench which decided Roshanlal's case that higher educational qualifications are relevant consideration for fixing a higher pay scale and therefore, matriculate tracers could be given a higher scale than non-matriculate tracers though their duties were identical and there could be impediment in classifying them on the same basis for promotion.In the light of the above two constitutional judgements, when a policy is taken as regards the service conditions of an employee, various factors can be considered by the administrator as to the service conditions including the difference in pay scales and also promotion on 36 different yardsticks. When an aggrieved employee challenges alleging discrimination on the equality principle, the above two constitutional bench judgements are quite clear and both the judgements support the stand of respondents on the ratio.
28. Similarly in Chandra Prakash Reddy's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the orders of the Tribunal/ High Court and held that Note 6 to Rule 3 which deals with the method of appointment and for the purpose of promotion was held to be unconstitutional and the said ratio, in the matter of promotions is not relatable to the so-called birth marks relied on by petitioners. In Shiva Guru's case (supra), it was held that birth marks were obliterated by merger. Regarding the integration of employees of NLEP into the MHWS, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgement of the High Court holding that the re-designated Health Inspector Grade-I ought to have been given the scale of pay from the date of merger. In fact, the SBI did not discriminate at all in the matter of terminal benefits to be extended with effect from effective date of merger ie. 01.04.2017 as the employees of Associate Banks are deemed to be recruited as employees of SBI with effect from 01.04.2017. In fact, the proposition laid in the judgment in relation to promotion has no application as the case on hand is concerned 37 about extending the terminal benefits like contributory provident (from the date of confirmation in the subsidiary banks), SCA, SBA as applicable to certain employees of State Bank of India who were on the rolls of State Bank of India as on the relative cut-off dates which are much prior to the merger of five subsidiaries and four advance increments as available to the directly recruited POs. and TOs. in terms of the recruitment policy of SBI which were not available to the POs. and TOs. of Associate banks recruitment policy.
29. With regard to unreported judgement in Civil Appeal 17529-17530 of 2017 (Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab), which deals with the benefit of proficiency step up which was directed to be extended to the appellants as the appellants formed part of same establishment and were similarly-situated to the employees who were granted the benefits under proficiency step up scheme but whereas under
the very acquisition of Associate Banks has assured to the employees that their pay and allowances are fully protected and the merger of the organizations as far as the Associate Banks are concerned, which are Statute based and as regards the service conditions of the employees/officers of associate banks are not at all affected and none of the cases relied on by the 38 petitioners are relatable to issues raised by petitioners rather support the stand of SBI as stated in preceding paragraphs.
30. With regard to the judgements on the legitimate expectations, as already submitted, there is no requirement of any consultation with the employees of the transferor bank or the transferee bank at the time of acquisition/merger. The decisions on the legitimate expectations are absolutely out of context in the facts attendant to the present case. It is significant to mention that absolutely the doctrine of legitimate expectation sought to be relied upon by petitioners solely on the ground when two subsidiary banks were acquired on the very identical conditions in 2008 and 2010, the employees were extended the terminal benefits with part of SCA called as SCA-2 and SBA to State Bank of Saurashtra alone as at the time of determination of wage settlement under 9th bipartite settlement and specific allocation of Rs.289.64 crores to the employees of State bank of India including the staff strength of State Bank of Saurashtra which was merged by then was also taken into account However, no SCA and SBA is being paid to the employees of State Bank of Indore as the eligibility and entitlement of SCA & SBA are linked to the employees being on the rolls of SBI as on 01.11 1993 / 23.07 2003 (in respect of 39 SCA) In respect of SBA the elıgıbılıty is linked to the employees being in the rolls of SBI as on 31.10.2007.
31. The case relied on by petitioners in Civil Appeals No. 7256-7259 of 2024 (Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma) after elaborately discussing the relevant case law in relation of doctrine of legitimate expectation while differentiating between legitimate expectations on the one hand, anticipation wishes and desire has categorically observed that a legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation and it is distinct and different from a desire and hope and it is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government dealings with the public which operate in both procedural and substantive matters and in para 48 have noted the features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
a) First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation
b) Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise, or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings
c) Thirdly, expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random facts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid can not be treated as a legitimate expectation
d) Fourthly, legitimate expectation operates in relation to both substantive and procedural matters;
e) Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.
40
f) Sixthly, a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has a duty to act fairly generally.
It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of the contract between private parties wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel operates the field.
32. On the other hand, in Punjab Communications Ltd. V. Union of India 19, the principle propounded by Lord Diplock reported in 1985 AC 374 that for a legitimate expectation to arise, the decisions of the administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which
(i) He had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment
(ii) He has received assurance from the decision maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him an opportunity first of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn 19 (1999) 4 SCC 727 41 It was also observed that the substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is made, a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit, it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced. It was further held in para 19 that an expectation entertained by a person may not be found to be legitimate due to the existence of some countervailing consideration of policy or law. Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances, including change in the political complexion of Governments. The liberty to make such changes is something that is inherent in our Constitutional form of Government. In the instant case, the Central Board of the Transferee bank has been vested with inherent power to frame, approve and implement the policies preceded by Government and RBI including RBI, directed by the GSR.
33. It may not be out of context to state that the Memorandum of Settlements dated 22.07.2003 and 23.07.2003 with All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and All India State Bank Officers Federations separately vide para 8, it was reiterated that all those permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees who are on the rolls of State Bank of India service as on the date of settlement and who were in the rolls of 42 State Bank of India on 31.10.1993 alone will be entitled for payment of Special Compensatory Allowance. In other words, those who had joined the bank service on or after 01.11.1993 will not be eligible to receive Special Compensatory Allowance (Copy of the Memorandum of settlement dated 22.07.2003 and 23.07.2023 between the bank and both the federations). Even prior to the merger of the associate bank put up a claim for Special Compensatory Allowance which was declined by the Bank being a request for a special package in addition to what has been agreed to and paid in terms of the Industry Level Agreement. It was observed that petitioners are members of AISBOF, which is one of the signatories to joint note singed by the Officers' Association with IBA on 14.12 1999. Demand of the 4th petitioner had raised the issue of SCA in April 2000 itself.
The joint note has been signed by the officers associations/federations only after being satisfied.
34. As regards Special Balancing Allowance (SBA), the minutes of the meeting with the Federations held on 15.02.2011 in respect of distribution of 289.64 crores,
1) Clause 11 of the minutes specifically states that, employees and officers joining the Bank on or after 01 11 2007 by appointment or recruitment or by mergers will not be eligible for the above SBA It further states that officers and employees of erstwhile State Bank of Indore was a separate entity as on date of 9th Bipartite settlement and hence will not be eligible for SBA and the minutes also discusses the 43 reason why the officers and employees of erstwhile State Bank of Saurastra who were in permanent employment of the bank as on 31. 10.2007 was eligible to the above special balancing allowance w.e.f 13.08.2008 as the staff cost of the officials and employees of State Bank of Saurastra was included in the work sheet of IBA as SBI employees while arriving at the amount of Rs.289.64 crores.
i) Clause 5, states that SBI was granted vide approval given by Government of India vide letter dated 18 11.2010 to distribute the amount of Rs.289.64 crores representing the balancing cost of pension in respect of SBI arising out of 9th Bipartite settlement and joint note dated 27.04.2010 amongst its employees in the form of allowance. The minutes states that, the government has advised that this amount however should be frozen as on 01.11.2007 for the entire duration of the 9th bipartite settlement. The minutes also encompass specific advise given by the Govt. That it shall be a one time arrangement and that will not be treated as a precedent for a future settlement. It is submitted that for the very same reason that the benefits of SCA has also been restricted by the cut off date during which the employee/ officer should be on the rolls of the establishment of State Bank of India
35. As per Government of India directives vide letter No. F-4/4/4/96-IR, dated 07.10.1996, Public Sector Banks cannot extend any new benefits or existing benefits/facilities, make improvements in officers/workmen which are beyond the preview of industry level Bipartite settlement and officers' service regulations without taking prior approval of the Government. Therefore, in the merger scheme or acquisition of SBT, SBH, SBM, SBP, SBBJ, no such term has been approved by SBI. Hence, it is submitted that petitioners have no cause of action to claım allowances and they cannot be permitted to circumvent the law on the misconceived ground of equality. Having signed the minutes of the meeting, they have 44 approached the Court which is a total violation of the terms and conditions agreed to in the meeting. On the basis of the said agreements, bank issued Circular dated 01.03.2011.
36. Out of the total strength of 70,190 employees in the five Associate Banks at the time of merger, consisting of both award staff and officers as on 01.04.2017, only 25355 are the officers out of which more than 99 percent have opted for pension in lieu of contributory provident fund and they have authorized the bank to transfer the banks contribution to the trustees of pension fund, for meeting the pension obligation as per Pension Regulations of 1995. Therefore, in terms of the application of doctrine of election, having already opted for pension in lieu of contributory provident fund and having acquiesced for the position, much before the merger, petitioners are debarred and estopped from raising the present claim.
37. Further, at the cost of repetition, from the counter affidavit, it is to be noted that Petitioner No. 1 was proceeded with Disciplinary Inquiry by the transferee bank for gross misconduct committed by him in the course of employment with the Transferor Bank during which, it was proved that he committed misconduct qua the charges and was imposed with the punishment of removal from service and the Appeal having 45 been dismissed, he preferred Writ Petition No. 13041 of 2020. This Court by order dated 03.05 2024 directed the bank to consider imposition of any lesser punishment than that of dismissal and removal; then SBI preferred Writ Appeal No. 819 of 2024 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 09.09.2024. Considering the said order, the Disciplinary Authority, having independently reviewed the earlier decision of removal from service, imposed the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" by order dated 13.11.2024 which was communicated to Petitioner No.1, who, in the meanwhile, filed Review Application in Writ Appeal through another counsel questioning the very submissions made on his behalf by his earlier counsel who submitted that the Bank can also impose the punishment of Compulsory Retirement stating that such an instruction was not given by Petitioner to his earlier counsel, but the Bank has denied such a contention as the very Petitioner was present in the course of such submission by his earlier counsel in the Court Hall. The Division Bench was reported as to the decision taken pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge affirmed by the learned Division Bench and having recorded the submission, the Division Bench dismissed the Review Petition. Thus, the order of Compulsory Retirement attained finality. It is not out of place to 46 mention that Compulsory Retirement, a major punishment, is lesser than the punishment of dismissal and removal from service in law as the same is not stigmatic, albeit the terminal benefits and pension are the same. Since petitioner No.1 has not exercised his option while joining the services of SBI, as envisaged by the offer letter, he will be paid terminal benefits from the effective date. As regards the status, in the light of the disciplinary action taken as per Regulations of the Transferor Bank, he has no locus to challenge the merger scheme or terms and conditions approved by the Board of Directors of Transferor Banks and the Central Board of the Transferee Bank and the Central Government and Reserve Bank of India.
38. As regards the locus of Petitioner No 4 - a registered Trade Union under Trade Union Act, 1926 which is governed by the Bye-Laws framed under the Statute, as per Bye-Law No. 28 as to the Legal Proceedings by which the Federation being a Corporate Body may sue or be sued in the name of its "General Secretary" of "All India State Bank Officers Federation" or in the name of any other Person so authorized by the Executive Committee of AISBOF in respect of its own rights and interest and obligations. The writ affidavit on behalf of Petitioner No. 4 in the cause title was stated to be represented 47 by its Vice-President Harshavardhan Madabhushi, AISBOF and the subsequent affidavits filed by way of reply/Interlocutory Applications by the other person in the capacity of Vice- President, did not produce any resolution of Executive Committee in proof of such of the All India State Bank Officers Federation located at Chennai as then was having registered Office at Chennai which is essentially to be represented by the General Secretary of such Executive Committee Respondents place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Prabhat's case (supra) which declined to entertain a Writ Petition filed by a person who was not authorized to initiate the legal process on behalf of the Association. The Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterating the ratio in Prabhat's case (supra), in the case of Madhya Pradesh Sikshak Sangh through its Joint Secretary against the State of Madhya Pradesh was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition and further in United Private Hospitals Directors Association through its Vice-President was pleased to dismiss at the threshold such Writ Petitions since not been authorized by the registered/unregistered incorporated or not bodies.
39. With regard to Petitioners 2 and 3, who are the employees of erstwhile SBH, did not indicate at all as to what 48 options they have exercised so as to exhibit their grievance. In other words, it is lack of espousing a cause so as to adjudicate the issues. It is stated from the records of Respondent Bank that Petitioner No.2 retired on 30.05.2023 and opted the terminal benefits of State Bank of India, as per option A, in terms of which he would be entitled for Pension as of the SBI Pension, Bank's Contribution Provident Fund from the effective date i.e. 01.04.2017 and Statutory Gratuity as payable under Payment of Gratuity Act. Petitioner No. 3, on his superannuation, was paid terminal benefits as chosen by him and he is receiving pension as per his eligibility. Petitioners 2 and 3 in fact did not espouse any cause in their individual capacities nor the grievance on the touchstone of Article 14 or any right, and therefore the Writ Petition must fail on the above objections.
40. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the claim of petitioners. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
49
41. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
42. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 20th June, 2025 ksld