R.L. Khashu And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1435 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioners 12 in number, have filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the decision of respondent No. 3 posting petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to Udhampur branch of respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P-7 dated 9th October, 2003 by which the petitioner No. 1 was deployed as Branch Manager at the Udhampur Branch permanently. Similar order dated 6th September, 2003 was passed in respect of petitioner No. 2 who was posted as Field Officer at the Udhampur Branch and asked to report for duty immediately. The remaining petitioners also assail similar contemplating action against them. Petitioners seek a direction for status quo till normalcy is restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir or in the alternative seek direction for posting to State Bank of India being sponsor Bank.

2. Notice to show cause in the case had been issued. Pleadings have been completed. Even though there are no interim orders passed, respondents have not taken any precipitative action. During the course of hearing, records from State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai as well as correspondence exchanged with Union of India and respondent No. 3-Ellaquai Dehati Bank (in short "EDB") were produced. During the course of proceedings, petitioners' Counsel had also produced a letter addressed by Deputy Chief Minister, Jammu and Kashmir to the President of Nodal Agency for Displaced Kashmir is stating that Resident Commissioner of Jammu and Kashmir had been advised not to relieve the Kashmir is migrant employees. Notice was also issued to the Resident Commissioner, State of Jammu and Kashmir to ascertain whether the employees of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would also be covered within the ambit of letter dated 2nd February, 2004 of Deputy Chief Minister of State of Jammu and Kashmir to which we shall advert in later part. Arguments were heard and judgment reserved.

3. Mr. Rakesh Tikku, learned Counsel for the petitioners on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that said petitioners were forced to abandon their residence during the height of militancy in 1988-89. Following the militancy, there was large scale exodus. Central Government, State Bank of India and EDB treated the migration of employees as a human problem. Instructions were issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance to the State Bank of India as well as by State Bank of India to EDB to release the salary of the employees. Efforts were also made to post these employees to Regional Rural Banks (in short RRBs) and other branches of State Bank of India where ever they could be adjusted. Some of the employees got the postings and reported to duty and others could not be posted and continued to receive the salary.

4. Mr. Tikku submitted that employees of EDB being uprooted from their home and earth have now got accustomed to life at Delhi with their wards admitted to schools, colleges. At this juncture, by the impugned order, they are being asked to report back for duty at Udhampur Branch in Jammu and Kashmir. Udhampur continues to be declared as a disturbed area and the situation is far from normal. Petitioners, therefore, ought not to be re-transferred, uprooting them for the second time. It was urged that EDD as well as State Bank of India and Union Government have to formulate a long term strategy and deployment plan spread over for a period of time rather than subjecting them to re-transfer. Mr. Tikku relying on the letter addressed by Deputy Chief Minister further argued that the instructions given therein were binding on the Bank as being from the State Government. Further, that the petitioners would also fall within the ambit and scope of persons covered by letter. Mr. Dewan Parvez, Resident Commissioner, State of Jammu and Kashmir had been summoned in Court. He explained that respondent No. 3-EDB was not a State Cooperative Bank. The shareholding of the Bank is 50% by Government of India, 35% by State Bank of India and 13% State of Jammu and Kashmir. He submits that letter of February 2, 2004 was in the nature of suggestion/recommendation. Mr. Parvez stated that he himself had spoken to the Managing Director of EDB-respondent No. 3 who informed that Bank was no longer in a position to pay the employees in Delhi. Further the suggestion of State of Jammu and Kashmir which has only 15% shareholding was not binding on the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3-EBD.

5. Mr. Sanjay Kapoor opposed the writ petition as not being maintainable as no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court On merits also, he submitted that respondent-Bank has acted with utmost concern and has been responsive to the needs of the employees recognizing that initially 189 employees of respondent Bank left the valley due to disturbed condition. A decision was taken to post the affected employees in other RRBs in the State of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, etc. Orders were issued for posting of the migrant employees to RRBs in the above states. 90 out of 189 employees did not join. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being the one who had failed to join. It is stated that employees who had not joined were considered again for deployment in RRBs of their choice. Respondents claim that these employees worked at their choice of posting for three years. About 30 to 40 of them did not continue and deserted their postings. Accordingly, a decision was taken to re-deploy them with respondent No. 3-EDB from the RRBs to which they were posted. Reserve Bank of India permission was taken to open six branches outside the valley. The left over and unadjusted employees were posted at zonal office at Jammu and Kashmir till alternative arrangements could be made. Options were given to take the postings at the Delhi office of SBI but they did not avail of the offer. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 12, it is claimed did not opt under the policy of NABARD for re-deployment with RRBs. Various options were made available to petitioner No. 1 which he declined to accept. These including postings at Barabanki Gramin Bank in June, 1991, in August, 1992 at Gurgaon Gramin Bank, in March, 1993 at Haryana Kshatriya Gramin Bank, on 8.10.1997 as Branch Manager at Udhampur Branch. Promotion in December, 2000 as MMGS-II, posting in December, 2000 as Branch Manager, Anantnag. Finally, the respondents decided to post the petitioner on deputation with State Bank of India till alternate arrangements could be made. Petitioner did not accept any of this. Mr. Tikkuquestions the assertion of petitioner No. 1 had deserted his post on 1.12.1994 as not being correct. He submitted that after his posting with Haryana Kshatriya Gramin Bank in March, 1993, petitioner No. 1 was reverted to EDB. Petitioner No. 1 did not join EDB and hence it could not be said that he had deserted the post.

6. From the foregoing discussion and based on the pleadings and record of the petition, it is seen that after employees had left the Valley, they had been accommodated in various RRBs and options made available for joining a new branches of SBI wherever employees could be accommodated. Petitioners have been paid salary in view of extraordinary circumstances. It was urged that EDB is no longer in a position to continue to pay indefinitely salaries to those employees who have failed to respond to the offers made for posting at other RRBs. Now NABARD Scheme which came into operation in 2002 gave options to all migrant employees of EDB to exercise and elect their option and get posted at any of the RRBs. This offer was up to 15th December, 2003. Petitioners have chosen not to exercise this option. Petitioners be not shown any further indulgence. Options were invited vide letter dated 23.10.2003, Annexure P-8.

7. There is no denying the fact that Kashmiri migrants who have to leave their earth and homes went through sufferings which required treatment with compassion and understanding. The situation did not call for a legal solution. It has to be recognized that respondents, SBI and Central Government, have contributed their bits to ameliorate the sufferings of migrant employees by posting them at various RRBs. More than half the employees opted for the postings and adjusted. Others who do not opt, were given an opportunity again for redeployment at the posting of their choice in RRBs. Finally under NABARD scheme, options were invited.

8. In this scenario where petitioners choose not to exercise their option and/or opt under the NABARD scheme, they cannot be heard to complain against their postings at Udhampur. Respondents cannot be expected to pay salaries in perpetuity, especially when petitioners declined reasonable offers of postings. A period of nearly 11-13 years has gone by. EBD-respondent No. 3 Bank has also its responsibility to its stake holders and shareholders.

In view of the foregoing discussion, petitioners are not entitled to reliefs sought and the writ petition is dismissed.