Manoj Kumar vs The State Bank Of India, Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5089 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5875 of 2018
     ======================================================

Manoj Kumar Son of Nandlal Rai, Resident of Village-Bela Pachgachhiya, P.S.-Yahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Bank of India, through its Chairman

2. The Branch Manager, Patiyasi Branch of S.B.I., Post-Mirzapur, P.S.-

Yahiyarpur, District-Muzaffarpur

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-10-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed

seeking direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to

work on the post upon which he was working earlier.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner had applied to the post as Business Correspondent

(individual) in the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur on

26.12.2014 and subsequently, started working for the Bank on

the basis of letter issued by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

dated 05.06.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner was working with due satisfaction of

the authorities of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and

received payment from the Bank till 31.10.2017 but thereafter, Patna High Court CWJC No.5875 of 2018 dt.05-10-2023

he was not paid, then he sent legal notice but nothing happened.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the writ petition with prayer

that he may be permitted to continue to work on the post he was

working earlier and alternatively to give weightage in present/

future vacancy of Class- IV post for service rendered by him.

5. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the

appointment letter of the petitioner is very categorical in which

it has been clearly stated in clause- 5 that engagement of the

petitioner with Bank is, as service provider only and it does not

create any employers/ employees relationship. It has also been

mentioned that the petitioner shall have no right to claim any

employment whatsoever from the Bank.

6. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits

that the petitioner was working as service provider and in lieu

thereof, he was entitled for money which is commission based.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner was engaged by the

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur but subsequently, the merger of

the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur took place with the State

Bank of India w.e.f. 01.04.2017.

7. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits

that in the light of the appointment letter, the engagement of the

petitioner as Business Correspondent was only for one year and

at no level, extension of such engagement has been made in his

favour. According to the terms of contract, the engagement of Patna High Court CWJC No.5875 of 2018 dt.05-10-2023

the petitioner was ended in June 2016 itself.

8. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits

that from the entire pleadings of the writ petition, the petitioner

has not produced any single cheat of paper by which it can be

shown that his services has ever been extended beyond June

2016.

9. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits

that since, no extension beyond June 2016 was made, therefore,

any payment received by him against the alleged services

rendered by him after June 2016, appears to be unauthorized.

10. Learned counsel for the Bank further submits

that after merging of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur with

the State Bank of India, the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

Kafen Choudhary Branch merged with Patiyasa Branch and the

said Patiyasa Branch of the State Bank of India did not take any

work from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the

petitioner has no case at all.

11. In the light of the submissions made by the

parties and the documents on record, it transpires to this Court

that the petitioner has been engaged by the State Bank of

Bikaner & Jaipur for one year by the letter of appointment

(Annexure- 5) dated 05.06.2015. The said engagement of the

petitioner in the Branch was as service provider in lieu of

providing commission work wise. But after merger of the State Patna High Court CWJC No.5875 of 2018 dt.05-10-2023

Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur with the State Bank of India, the

situation has completely changed. Even the existence of the said

Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur has also not into

existence.

12. In view of the Court that the appointment was

only for one year and in the terms of appointment, there has

already been mentioned that it does not create any employer/

employees relationship and no right to claim any employment

whatsoever from the Bank. The petitioner has no right to seek

any relief(s). It is also clear to this Court that when the existence

of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur itself is not there, then the

ultimate decision shall prevail only of the State Bank of India.

13. In this view of the matter, this Court must not

create any liability on the State Bank of India and, therefore,

found no merit in this case and accordingly, this writ petition is

hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          09.10.2023
Transmission Date       NA