Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Sharma vs State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman ... on 23 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30902
Reserved on 15.05.2025
Delivered on 23.05.2025
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2000946 of 2001
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Sharma
Respondent :- State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashovardhan Swarup, Ram Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- N.K.Seth,D.P.Dwivedi,Sharad Dwivedi
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Yashovardhan Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent-bank.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(I). issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order No.DGM:P&HRD 464 dated 23.03.2001 by means of which the promotion which was granted to the petitioner in MMGS-II with effect from 01.01.1992 vide order dated 08.01.1993 was withdrawn and quash order No.DGM:P&HRD 468 dated 23.03.2001 by means of which the basic salary of the petitioner was revised and refixed in the grade of JMGS-I for the purpose of SBIVRS benefits ;
(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to calculate the SBIVRS benefits of the petitioner on the basis of last pot held."
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 04.08.1967 in Clerical Cadre and during the course of service, the petitioner passed and qualified Officer Grade-II Departmental Examination and got promotion w.e.f. 15.4.1978 was subsequently placed in Junior Management Grade-I (hereinafter referred to as 'JMGS-I') on 01.10.1979 and 01.01.1992, the petitioner was again promoted in the Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as 'MMGS-II').
4. The SBI answering-respondents floated Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as the State Bank of India-Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short 'SBIVRS') on 30.12.2000. Accordingly, the Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 27.12.2000 accorded approval for adopting SBIVRS for its employees.
5. The petitioner opted for SBI-VRS and submitted his application on 15.01.2001 and thereafter the SBI-VRS application was accepted vide Order No.DGM/P&HRD/SBIVRS/42 dated 02.03.2001. It was further ordered that the petitioner would be relieved and retired at the close of business on 31.03.2001.
6. The petitioner was served two letters by opposite party no. 3 i.e. letter dated 23.03.2001 which indicated that promotion which was granted to the petitioner in MMGS-II w.e.f. 01.01.1992 vide order dated 08.01.1993 was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the rural/semi-urban assignment and further by Order No.DGM:P&HRD 468 dated 23.01.2001, the basic salary of the petitioner was revised and refixed in the grade of JMGS-I for the purpose of SBIVRS benefits and the promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of MMGS-II has been withdrawn by revising the basic salary in the Lower Grade.
7. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent-bank and stand has been taken by the SBI that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division issued guidelines on 23.03.1986 for promotion but supersession to all of the guidelines issued by the Government. Certain policy decisions for eligibility criteria were taken and it was also stipulated in condition that promotion from JMS-I in MMGS-II, an employee must possess minimum of two years service in rural branch.
8. In pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Government of India in letter dated 23.06.1986, the bank issued Circular dated 22.5.1987 by stipulating condition that rural/semi-urban service would be one of the criteria for promotion to MMG Scale-II and MMG Scale-III. Subsequently, the bank issued another Circular dated 16.09.1989 in respect of the implementation of the Government Policy for rural/semi-urban services by an Officer for becoming eligible for promotion to MMG Scale-II and MMG Scale-III.
9. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the bank that the petitioner did not complete two years stipulated service in rural/semi-urban areas therefore, his promotion on the said post of MMGS-II was withdrawn. It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that bank issued another Circular on 11.6.1999 with regard to rural/semi-urban assignment and withdrawal of promotions and in para 3 of the said Circular, it was specifically provided that till the employee completes posting at rural/semi-urban assignment, their promotion is to be treated as ad-hoc promotion.
10. The Central Board of SBI in its meeting dated 27.12.2000 accorded its approval for adoption and implementation of VRS Scheme as submitted to the Board vide memorandum dated 26.12.2000. Now the Bank has right to modify, amend or cancel any or all of the Clauses and to give effect thereto from any date it may deem fit and for the purpose, the Deputy Managing Director and C.D.O. was specified by the competent authority. The resolution was passed in the Board meeting dated 27.12.2000 in which a specific stand has been taken by the bank that the petitioner has not completed two year posting in rural/semi-urban areas therefore, promotion granted to him was withdrawn as per policy and guidelines of the Central Government as well as the Bank. The SBIVRS sheme of the petitioner has been approved by granting benefit to the petitioner of pay-scale of JMGS-I Grade.
11. Shri Yashovardhan Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criteria for eligibility for seeking VRS only requires that a person should be a permanent employee of the bank and except those who fall within the definition of ineligible employees under the Scheme itself. The employee should have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000. Learned counsel has submitted that the original scheme of VRS did not in any way provided that at the time of moving of an application for VRS or at the time of accepting the request of VRS, an employee should have completed two years rural/semi-urban posting but it was a modification of the scheme by means of the subsequent Circulars which in fact on the other hand requires Officials to undergo the aforesaid posting. It has been submitted that if the employee/officer was once available and has not objected to the posting of rural/semi-urban branch and the bank has not provided such posting then it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any manner responsible or have avoided the condition as stipulated under the policy.
12. It has further been submitted that it is not the case of the bank that at any point of time, the bank had issued posting at rural or semi-urban place therefore the petitioner may not be held responsible in any manner and they have put their continuous service without any interruption. It is also submitted that the option was accepted by the bank accepting his last drawn salary and posting but later on the same has been withdrawn ; thus the subsequent action is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that there was a provision for permitting the withdrawal of the request of VRS.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2012) 3 All LJ 87 P.K. Kalia vs. State Bank of India and others. 16. He has submitted that after looking into the aforesaid judgment of P.K. Kalia (supra), it is abundantly clear that the case of the petitioner is at par and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid judgment.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-bank Shri Sharad Dwivedi has submitted that the Government of India issued guidelines vide Circular dated 22.5.1987 and 23.06.1987 two years minimum posting for rural/semi-urban is required for the next promotion i.e. MMGS-II and the petitioner did not fulfill the aforesaid criteria because when the petitioner gave option for VRS, he had not completed two years posting in rural/semi-urban area therefore, the Management of the Bank rightly cancelled the promotion on the post of MMGS-II and fixed the retiral benefits on JMGS-I.
15. Learned counsel for respondent-bank has further submitted that under the SBIVRS scheme, there was sufficient time that the petitioner has to undergo the required posting before attaining the age of superannuation and since it was a case of compulsorily retirement, the petitioner knew that at the time of opting for SBIVRS, the petitioner had not completed rural/semi-urban assignment therefore, his appointment has been withdrawn as such the impugned order is justified.
16. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Bank that since posting at rural/semi-urban was mandatory for seeking promotion to the higher post and such posting was not completed by the petitioner and it would be deemed to be ad-hoc therefore, on the date of voluntary retirement, the petitioner has been given all the benefits which are attributable to substantive posts and he cannot raise any grievance as he was not entitled to the benefit on the post on which the petitioner was working as ad- hoc.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has relied upon the judgment passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.24077 of 2001 Rameshwar Dayal Srivastava vs. General Manager passed by the Division Bench of this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 06.05.2008 has refused to interfere in the writ petition. The observations made in relevant paras reads as under :
"७. भारत सरकार ने बैंक को निर्देशित किया था अधिकारियों को ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में काम करना चाहिए। तत्पश्चात बैंक ने इस संबंध में दो निर्देश क्रमशः दिनांकित २२.५.१९८७ एवं ७.७.१९८९ जारी किया इसमें स्पष्ट रूप से लिखा गया है की जूनियर मैनेजमेंट ग्रेड १ से मिडिल मैनेजमेंट ग्रेड द्वितीय में प्रोन्नत के लिए दो वर्ष तक ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में काम करना आवश्यक है। याची को जब प्रोन्नत किया गया था। उसके पहले याची ने इस संबंध में दिनांक १०.८.९० को बैंक के समक्ष यह वचन दिया था कि प्रोन्नत हो जाने के उपरांत यह दो वर्ष तक ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में काम करेगा एवं यदि वह ऐसा नहीं करेगा तो उसकी प्रोन्नत समाप्त कर दी जायेगी।
८. यह निर्विवाद है कि याची ने दो वर्ष तक ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में काम नहीं किया एवं उसने स्वयं वचन दिया था जिसमे इंगित किया था कि यदि वह ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में काम नहीं करेगा तो उसकी प्रोन्नति समाप्त कर दी जाएगी। इसलिए बैंक ने स्वेच्छा योजना के अंतर्गत सेवानिवृत करते हुए याची को जूनियर मैनेजमेंट ग्रेड १ का अधिकारी माना है । इसमें कोई त्रुटि नहीं है।
९. याचिका बलहीन है एवं बलहीन होने के कारण निरस्त की जाती है।"
18. Learned counsel for the bank has submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid order passed in Rameshwar Dayal (supra).
19. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-bank and perused the record.
20. As per criteria of the SVIVRS scheme, the petitioner was eligible because he had put 15 years of service and completed 40 eyars of age. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of P.K. Kalia (supra) case. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :-
"The aforesaid scheme giving criteria of eligibility for seeking voluntary retirement only requires that a person should be permanent employee of the Bank except those who fall within the definition of 'ineligible' under the scheme itself, he should have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000. In case any employee fulfills the eligibility conditions, he was entitled to seek voluntary retirement.
However, it appears that in pursuance of the power conferred under Clause 8(ix) of the scheme, the Bank issued a circular on 2.1.2001 wherein it laid down that if an officer, who has not completed the mandatory rural or semi-urban assignment (either wholly or partly), submits an application for retirement under the Scheme, his request would be subject to the provisions contained in circular No. CDO/PM/CIR/25 dated 11.6.1999. Thus, in case an officer from this category applies for retirement under the SBIVRS, his promotion would stand withdrawn. Again a circular note was issued on 8.1.2001 clarifying the scheme of voluntary retirement dated 30.12.2000, wherein it was provided as under:
"If an officer, who has not completed the mandatory rural or semi-urban assignment (either wholly or partly) submits an application for retirement under SBIVRS, his request would be subject to the provisions contained in Staff Circular No. CDO/PM/1 of 1999 dated 7.8.99. Thus, in case of an officer from this category applying for retirement under SBIVRS before approving his case, his promotions would stand withdrawn."
This circular dated 8.1.2001 was issued by the State Bank of India, Personnel & HRD Dept., Local Head Office, Lucknow and contains the same provisions/conditions as were mentioned in the circular letter dated 2.1.2001.
The circular dated 11.6.1999, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure C-5 to the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 657 (S/S) of 2001, speaks of the same conditions in Para 3(vii), which reads as under:
"3.(vii) if an officer opts for voluntary retirement/resignation, the Bank would not permit such retirement/resignation unless he/she either completes the mandatory R/SU assignment or makes a request in writing to withdraw his/her promotion(s) as he/she cannot complete R/SU assignment and be retired. In case the officer applies for retirement/resigns, without making a request in writing for withdrawal of promotion(s), the Bank may withdraw his/her promotion(s) based on the undertaking already given and thereafter permit the officer to retire/resign."
So far as the circular dated 7.8.1999, is concerned, the reference of the same has already been made above in the circular dated 8.1.2001.
A perusal of the aforesaid circulars would reveal that the requirement of an officer for undergoing rural/semi-urban posting for the given period has been held to be mandatory and the consequence of the same for those who have not undergone such posting for any reason of their own; viz. their promotions shall be withdrawn, if they opt for voluntary retirement."
21. The judgment of P.K. Kalia (Supra) is relevant in the perspective of the fact that the original scheme of voluntary retirement did not anywhere provide that at the time of moving of the application for VRS or at the time of acceptance of the request for VRS, the Officer should have completed two years or three years rural/semi-urban posting. The said issue has been discussed by the Division Bench. The relevant portion of the same is quoted as hereunder:
"The employees/officers were required to give an undertaking at the time of promotion for undergoing an rural/semi-urban posting for the required period, failing which they will forgo the promotions, if they do not go for such posting, for any reason attributable to them. A copy of the same given by P.K. Kalia has been brought on record as Annexure C-4 to the counter affidavit. The aforesaid undertaking reads as under:
"(1)...........
(2) I also undertake to forgo the promotion in the event of my failing to complete the required period of service at rural/semi-urban branch for reasons attributable to me."
The original scheme of voluntary retirement did not anywhere provide that at the time of moving of application for voluntary retirement or at the time of acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement, the officer should have completed two years rural or three years semi-urban posting, but it was a modification of the scheme by means of the subsequent circulars which, in fact, on the one hand requires the officer/employee to undergo the aforesaid posting, which was termed as mandatory posting, and at the same time protected the interests of those officers/employees who could not be given such postings for the reasons not attributable to them. In other words, if an employee/officer was always available and has not objected to the posting of rural/semi-urban branch and the Bank of its own has not given any such posting, then it cannot be said that his posting in the rural/semi-urban area could not be undergone because of any reason attributable to him and all such officers were given, due protection from withdrawal of promotions.
The withdrawal of promotion at the time of retirement, as given in para 3(1) of the Circular dated 7.8.1999, was dependent only on the fact, whether the officer himself was responsible for not having rural/semi-urban posting or not i.e. for any reason attributable to him, may it be a case of promotion or that of voluntary retirement. On both the occasions withdrawal of promotion was permissible only if the rural/semi-urban posting was not done by the officer for any reason attributable to him, but if it was not a case where the officer can be held responsible for not taking rural posting, there is no provision under the scheme or under the circulars for withdrawal of the promotions.
A glance of paragraphs of the circulars, quoted above, would clearly establish the fact that the following condition is necessary for withdrawal of promotion while opting for voluntary retirement, namely; if an officer, who opts for voluntary retirement has not completed the mandatory rural or semi-urban assignment (either wholly or partly) for the reasons attributable to him then in view of the undertaking given by him his promotion would stand withdrawn. What is the undertaking we have already dealt with. The undertaking itself clearly says that the petitioner would forgo promotion in the event of failing to complete the required period of service at rural/semi-urban branch for the reasons attributable to him.
It is not the case of the respondents-Bank that the rural posting either wholly or partly could not be completed because of any reason attributable to the petitioner. The only ground in defence taken in the impugned orders is that the promotions are being withdrawn in accordance with the undertaking given by them, as the petitioner have not completed the stipulated period of rural/semi-urban assignment. We fail to appreciate the aforesaid plea.
There is nothing on record to indicate nor it is the case pleaded by the Bank that the assignment orders of rural posting were given to the petitioner and they refused to join on their rural postings.
The Bank had the sole discretion whether to accept or reject the request for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, even if the officer has not completed two years rural/semi-urban service. The Bank still without withdrawing the promotions of the petitioner, could have allowed the voluntary retirement as they were not given rural posting and the petitioner never refused to go on such posting as per the undertaking given by them.
The promotions were withdrawn either on the same date when the voluntary retirement was accepted or after issuance of the letter of voluntary retirement i.e. much after the communication of acceptance of voluntary retirement i.e. at a later point of time.
The petitioner had not made any request for withdrawal of their promotions and by the conduct of the Bank they did not have any opportunity to withdraw their request of voluntary retirement on having come to know that their promotions have been withdrawn though there was a provision, permitting withdrawal of the request of voluntary retirement.
The scheme of voluntary retirement was to be read in the light of the eligibility condition contained therein and also in view of the circulars which were issued clarifying the scheme, making them part and partial of the scheme. No action could have been taken by the Bank, which did not fall within the four corners of the aforesaid scheme. The Bank while exercising the discretion of accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner ought to have accepted the request, but without withdrawing the promotions as the undertaking given by them permitted withdrawal of promotions only, if they had not completed the rural posting for any reason attributable to them and there was no other clause under the scheme under which the promotions already granted could have been withdrawn."
22. In P.K. Kalia case, the Division Bench has held that at any point of time the employees/officers were not given ad hoc promotion and they did not refuse at any point of time to go for rural or semi-urban place; observations made by the Division Bench is quoted hereasunder :-
"The Bank granted promotions in the cases of P.K. Kalia and Syed Ejaz Haider in the year 1992 and in the case of U.C. Sanghi in the years 1986 and 1988 and thereafter in 1992, but at no point of time it was said that they were ad hoc promotions. The undertaking was taken from them to the effect that they would undergo the rural posting and would not refuse it otherwise their promotions would be withdrawn. The undertaking, as already observed, shows the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to undergo the rural posting and if they refuse to go on rural posting or avoid rural posting, their promotions will be withdrawn. But there is nothing in the undertaking or in the scheme or even in the circulars, referred to above, which allow withdrawal of the promotions if the Bank itself did not post the petitioner to any rural branch, knowing fully well that they have not completed two years rural posting. Their promotions could also not be treated as ad hoc which were made long before nor they were treated ad hoc by the Bank at any point of time, but only at the time when the writ petitions were filed, a defence has been taken in defence of the impugned orders of withdrawal of the promotions.
For the reasons aforesaid, it stands concluded that the voluntary retirement scheme of the State Bank of India did not in itself introduce the requirement of two years rural posting or three years semi urban posting for seeking voluntary retirement for which a definite eligibility criteria was pronounced in the scheme. The aforesaid requirement was made applicable for promotions and also for voluntary retirement by means of various circulars which we have discussed above. The undertaking was to be given by the employees/officers of the Bank that they were willing and ready to undertake the rural posting, which posting they shall not refuse on their own volition and if they refuse or avoid rural posting then the promotions granted to them would stand withdrawn. It is this undertaking which was made the basis for withdrawal of the promotions.
The promotions have not been withdrawn, under the impugned order treating them to be adhoc. The orders, impugned, therefore can not be defended by giving additional reasons in the counter affidavit.
Needless to reiterate that the undertaking aforesaid does not permit the Bank to withdraw promotions when no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for not going on rural posting or semi urban posting, as required."
23. After going through the records and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and respondent-bank, it transpires that identical issues have been decided in the case of P.K. Kalia (supra) and detailed and reasoned judgment has been passed on 24.1.2012. The reasons have been recorded and the Division Bench in P.K. Kalia (supra) has considered all the aspects of the matter, i.e. the eligibility for seeking VRS and guidelines of Government of India and detailed findings have been recorded. The reasons recorded has binding effect. The case of the petitioner is also squarely covered with the case of P.K. Kalia (supra) and petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the said judgment.
24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.03.2001 is quashed and the consequential benefit as extended in the case of P.K. Kalia vs. State Bank of India and others (2012) 3 All LJ 87 (supra) would be released in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent bank.
25. No order as to costs.
Dt./-23.05.2025
Pks
( Brij Raj Singh, J.)
