Jag Ram And 46 Others vs Union Of India And 6 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 1910 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 

 
Judgment reserved on:13.03.2018
 
Judgment delivered on: 09.08.2018
 

 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5596 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Jag Ram And 46 Others
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

Delivered by:Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2018 issued by the Deputy General Manager (FI & NF), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow with the request to issue a writ of mandamus to accord sanction to renewal of engagement of the petitioners as individual business correspondents by providing them liberty to submit renewal sanction form within the shortest possible time with further prayer not to interfere with the working of the petitioners as individual business correspondents under the respondent bank.

The brief facts of the case is that the State Bank of India issued a master circular in April, 2009 for engagement of business facilitators and business correspondents in State Bank of India. The circular specified the object as scheme for the financial inclusion by extension of banking service through business facilitators and business correspondents. The objective sought to be achieved was the twin objective of ensuring greater financial inclusion and increasing outreach of the Bank combined with the need to substantial increase the market share of the bank in the rural and semi-urban areas. The aforesaid scheme, envisaged engagement of business facilitators as also business correspondents.

The circular specified the selection criteria as also the procedure for selection as business correspondent/business facilitators. As per the circular which was published in several newspapers in the month of April, 2010 whereby applications were invited from different categories of individuals for selection and appointment as business correspondents of the bank.

All the petitioners being fully qualified and eligible, applied for consideration of appointment as business correspondents, in the selection so held on the basis of scoring sheet. All the petitioners stood selected and appointed as business correspondents. All the petitioners applied for appointment as individual business correspondent under Basti Business Regional Office which covered the districts of Basti and Ambedkar Nagar and after selection, the petitioners were appointed as individual business correspondents of State Bank of India. Petitioner nos. 1 to 40 and 47 were so selected for appointment in District Basti while petitioner nos. 41 to 45 were so selected for appointment in District Ambedkar Nagar.

On the basis of selection, each of the petitioners were issued orders appointing them as individual business correspondent with a specified customer service point where they were required to operate with a link branch also being specified with regard to individual petitioners.

Initially, engagement of each of the petitioners was made for a period of 12 months. The date of initial engagement of petitioner nos. 1 to 47 is from the year 2010 to 2014. All the petitioners even after expiry of the tenure were permitted to continue on the post of individual business correspondent.

The respondent bank in the year 2016 permitted all the petitioners to sign on a format of of an agreement purporting to grant renewal of their engagement for a period of one year from 2016 to 2017. Each of the petitioners signed the said format which was retained by the respondent authorities and no copy of the same was supplied to the petitioners.

It is, however, made clear that despite the fact that tenure of each of the petitioners expired, they were granted permission to continue without granting renewal of their appointments. The petitioners continued to discharge their function during the period 2016 - 2017 as they have been doing from the date of initial engagement till the year 2016.

The extended period which was extended in the year 2016 for a period of one year came to an end on different dates in the year 2017. Despite that, all the petitioners were permitted to continue to discharge all functions as individual business correspondents and to carry on normal business as they were doing at earlier point of time.

In the year 2017, a controversy came into existence on account of incidence of the respondent bank for individual business correspondent getting themselves affiliated to corporate/national business correspondent as a pre condition for further extension of their service.

On account of aforesaid controversy, in regard to identically circumstanced individual business correspondent operating in District Ballia filed Writ Petition No. 45151 of 2017 (Jai Prakash Dube & Others Vs. Union of India & Others) whereby direction was issued by the other co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court that the engagement of the petitioners as individual business correspondent will continue till 31.03.2018 if not modified earlier.

In the writ petition referred to hereinabove, State Bank of India filed a counter affidavit withdrawing circulars dated 12.04.2017 and 19.05.2017. Taking into consideration the withdrawal of the aforesaid two circulars, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous with liberty to challenge a fresh notice, if issued subsequently.

On 26.12.2017, individual notices were issued by the Branch Manager calling upon the petitioners to give their consent by signing an agreement on the renewal form enclosed with a letter and provide such consent on or before 28.12.2017. The notice was accompanied by the renewal agreement.

The respondents started insisting the petitioners for getting themselves affiliated to Corporate/National Business Correspondent. Then, some of the identically circumstanced individual business correspondent filed Writ Petition No. 2945 of 2018 wherein a counter affidavit was filed by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow clarifying therein that there was no insistence for getting individual business correspondent to be affiliated with the Corporate/National Business Correspondent. On the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit on behalf of State Bank of India, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2018.

The operative portion of the order dated 25.01.2018 is quoted below :

'In view of the categorical statement mentioned in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, the apprehension of the petitioners has not been put to rest.'

The controversy was resolved vide order dated 25.01.2018 on the basis of counter affidavit filed by State Bank of India, all the petitioners could not apply for renewal of their engagement within a period of two days made available to the petitioners vide communication dated 26.12.2017. At subsequent point of time, an order has been issued on 25.01.2018 directing the petitioners that their services would no longer required as business correspondent w.e.f. 26.01.2018 and deactivated the business correspondent code of the petitioners. Against, the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the order dated 25.01.2018 submitted that once the issue in regard to continuance of individual business correspondents stood clarified vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2018, then the petitioner would have been granted time to apply for their renewal on the facts and circumstances that only two days time was granted for submitting their consent for renewal of their engagement vide notice dated 26.12.2017 and further submitted that due to non grant of extension of time, the action is wholly arbitrary and without justification.

Next submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no rational justification on part of respondent/petitioner in discontinuing the engagement of the petitioners as business correspondent. The petitioners have legitimate expectation that while discontinuing the services, they are entitled to get opportunity before disengagement as business correspondents and submitted that due to non grant of time, the exercise of powers of the respondents/petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and discriminatory in nature.

The last submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that at the time of initial engagement even after expiry of period of engagement, they were permitted to continue as business correspondents even without grant of renewal to the said appointment. Once there was no complaint in regard to the working of the petitioners then they ought to have been permitted to exercise their consent for grant of renewal of their appointment.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/bank Sri Satish Chaturvedi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi have submitted that the engagement of the petitioners was contractual in nature subject to certain terms and conditions for a definite period and in spite of time granted to them, they did not come forward for renewal of their engagement.

Next submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Writ-C No. 5359 of 2018 dated 08.02.2018 and submitted that engagement of business correspondent on contract basis was taken into consideration and the Division Bench of this Court had refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to get relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the impugned order which is under challenge in the writ petition.

On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the engagement of the petitioners were in pursuance to an agreement executed between the petitioners and the bank which was renewed from time to time and lastly it was extended till the year 2017 and vide order dated 25.01.2018, their engagement has been cancelled. Once, the respondent bank provided liberty to the petitioners for renewal of their engagement and all the petitioners have failed to obtain that opportunity to get their appointment renewed, this liberty has not been availed by the petitioners at the relevant point of time.

The appointment of the petitioners are contractual in nature. So, no statutory right accrued in case they have been disengaged from continuing in service. The tenure of all the petitioners has expired. Thus, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2018 has rejected the claim of identically situated business correspondents and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 09.08.2018

Madhurima