Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 was appointed as Customer Relationship Executive (Personal Banking) (hereinafter referred to as `CRE-PB') in the respondent-Bank,  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -5- initially for a period of 2 years from 20/8/2007 to 19/8/2009. The recruitment of CRE-PBs are governed by the State Bank of India Customer Relationship Executives Service and Conduct Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the CRE Service Rules'). The petitioner's contract period was later renewed for a further period of one year from 20/8/2009 to 19/8/2010 vide Ext.P2 letter of renewal of contract. According to the petitioner, he had achieved the minimum target of 60% during the year 2009-2010. The SBI Officers Association (Patna Circle) has issued Ext.P3 Circular, regarding opportunity for permanent absorption to officers appointed on contract basis. As per Ext.P3, those CRE-PB, who are in the service of the respondent-Bank as on 14/7/2010 will be eligible for absorption as Customer Relationship Officer (PB) (hereinafter referred to as `CRO-PB'), subject to having achieved minimum 60% target during the year 2009-10. The Kerala Circle has also issued a circular similar to Ext.P3. Though, the petitioner satisfied all the requirements which are necessary for permanent absorption into the service of the respondent-Bank, excluding him, all the remaining 29 CRE-PBs were absorbed into  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -6- regular service. When the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 performance report some inadvertent mistakes crept in, for the year ending March, 2010, which were corrected and Ext.P5(a) annual performance report was submitted before the respondent- Bank along with Ext.P5 letter. But, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 communication dated 18/8/2010 stating that, his service stands discharged from respondent-Bank with effect from 18/8/2010 and he was directed not to attend the office after 19/8/2010. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 appeal before the respondent-Bank. Thereafter, he has approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication; a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 within a time limit; and for other consequential reliefs.

4. The respondent-Bank has filed counter affidavit in all the three Writ Petitions contending, inter alia, that the appointment of the petitioners were purely on contractual basis for a specified period and they have no vested right to claim  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -9- extension of their contract of employment. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.27178/2010 & 35631/2010 are governed by the Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 is governed by the Customer Relationship Executives Service and Conduct Rules, framed by the respondent-Bank. The respective contracts were renewable on completion of the contractual period depending on the performance and suitability of the OMRs/CRE-PB and the need of the respondent-Bank, at its discretion. The petitioners ceased to be the employees of the respondent-Bank on completion of the contract period of their appointment stipulated in the respective contracts and there is no illegality in the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions and such orders were issued as it was found that their contract of employment need not be renewed on objective consideration as per the relevant Service and Conduct Rules. The appeals filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as an appeal contemplated in the respective Service Rules will lie only in the case of termination of the contract service before the expiry of the period of contract. The  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -10- petitioners have no vested right for renewal of the contract. Only those who were in service as on 14/7/2010 are eligible for absorption subject to having achieved 60% target during the year 2009-10. Since the petitioners were not in service as on 14/7/2010 they cannot claim the said benefit and are not eligible for re-appointment, absorption or extension of contract service. The fact that some of the officers recruited along with the petitioners and also those recruited subsequently have been offered extended contract and absorption does not entitle the petitioners for extension of their contract of appointment or absorption in service.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three Writ Petitions and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank.

9. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.27178/2010 & 35631/2010 were working as OMRs, on contract basis, in different branches of the respondent-Bank and they were  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -13- governed by the OMR Service Rules issued by the respondent- Bank. On the other hand, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28936/2010 was working as CRE-PB, on contract basis, and he was governed by the CRE Service Rules issued by the respondent-Bank. Though, the appointment of the petitioners as OMRs/CRE-PB were purely contractual in nature for a specified period, going by the relevant Service Rules such contracts are renewable on completion of contractual period depending on the performance and suitability of the persons so appointed, at the bank's discretion and the need of the Bank. The stand taken by the respondent-Bank in its counter affidavit filed in all the three Writ Petitions is that, the petitioners ceased to be employees of the respondent-Bank on completion of the contract period of their appointment stipulated in the respective orders. Termination orders were issued on completion of the period of the contract appointment as it was found that their contract of employment need not be renewed on objective consideration as per the relevant Service and Conduct Rules. A mere perusal of the letters of termination issued by the respondent-Bank, which are  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -14- marked as Exts.P3 to P9 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.28936/2010 and as Ext.R4(b) in W.P.(C) No.35631/2010 make it abundantly clear that, the only reason stated by the respondent-Bank for discharging the petitioners is expiry of the period of the contract of appointment. It is trite law that, reasons cannot be substituted for the first time in the counter affidavit. This principle has been laid down by the Apex Court way back in the year 1978, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 (1) SCC 405).

11. It was thereafter, the Executive Committee of Central Board of the respondent-Bank in its meeting held on 14/7/2010, approved a policy for permanent absorption of OMRs, CREs, etc., in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-1) as Specialist Officers. Going by Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.27178/2010, OMRs will be absorbed in JMGS-1 as Specialist Officers, at the initial stage of pay, as Rural Marketing & Recovery Officers. Similarly, CRE- PBs will be absorbed in JMGS-1 as Specialist Officers, at the  W.P.(C)NOS. 27178, 28936 & 35631 /10 -16- initial stage of pay, as Customer Relationship Officer (PB). As per Para 2.i of Ext.P17, the officers who are in service of the respondent-Bank as on 14/7/2010 will be eligible for absorption, subject to having achieved minimum 60% targets during the year 2009-10 and the performance of the officers will be assessed as per the performance evaluation matrix advised by the Strategic Business Units (SBUs). As per Para 2.xiv of Ext.P17, the benefit of the scheme of permanent absorption will be applicable also to those OMRs/TOFSs who have filed court cases seeking permanent absorption.