In a significant legal battle concerning the eligibility for absorption as Junior Manager Grade Scale I, a dispute arose between the bank and employees. The Delhi High Court recently rendered a judgment on the matter, shedding light on the intricacies of bank policies dated 20.07.2010 and 18.08.2010. Stay tuned to learn more about the case and the court’s decision!
Facts
- The appellants sought directions against the respondent bank to absorb them as Junior Manager Grade Scale I (Specialized Officers) as per the bank policies dated 20.07.2010 and 18.08.2010.
- The Single Judge rejected the writ petition of the appellants.
- The judgment was made in accordance with the facts and policies presented.
Arguments
- Petitioner argues that they were not eligible for attention to the two policies dated 20.07.2010 and 18.08.2010 as they were holding the post of OMR (Rural S-1) which made their performance as OMR (Rural) unavailable for evaluation, a mandatory requirement for absorption policy.
- They could not achieve the performance target for the financial year 2009-10 due to reasons beyond their control, seeking relaxation as per the amended policy.
- The Bank allowed OMRs who had resigned and re-joined in the higher cadre as OMRs S-1 to be considered for permanent absorption as their services could be evaluated, highlighting that OMR-S1 officers were not eligible for permanent absorption.
- Only candidates who had worked as OMR with the Bank and rejoined in the higher cadre as OMR-S1 were considered for absorption.
Analysis
- The petitioners in this case joined the bank before the cut-off date but did not fulfill two specific conditions outlined in the policy dated 20th July, 2010.
- The amended policy which allows relaxation in fulfilling the performance target of 60% is applicable to individuals who were earlier OMRs and then rejoin as OMR-S1, which does not apply to the petitioners in this case.
- Therefore, the relaxation of the amended policy cannot be granted to the petitioners as they did not fit the criteria specified.
- The appellants never worked as OMR (Rural) and did not fulfill the mandatory requisite period for evaluation.
- No performance evaluation of the appellants as OMR (Rural) took place.
- There was a distinction made by the respondents in absorbing employees based on their work as OMR (Rural) or OMR (Rural S-1).
- The court cannot question the rationale behind the policy decision of the respondents to absorb only those candidates who had worked as OMR (Rural).
- The petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria mentioned in the policies and thus were not absorbed.
- There is no evidence of discrimination as alleged by the petitioners in the absorption process.
Decision
- The appeal and accompanying application were found to be meritless.
- As a result, both the appeal and application were dismissed.
Case Title: MR. DHARMENDRA PRASAD SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA THR CHAIRMAN AND ORS (2024:DHC:3873-DB)
Case Number: LPA-705/2022
