SAROJ DHALL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Smt. Saroj Dhall while working as an Assistant at Lucknow in the State Bank of India (respondent No. 1) took voluntary retirement (VRS) on 31. 03. 2001. At the time she took VRS, she had put in more than 25 years of service. She was transferred to the Lucknow circle of State Bank of India in august, 2000 and before that she was working in Delhi at Khyala Branch under the jurisdiction of Delhi region of the respondent bank. A settlement was arrived at between the State Bank of India and the All India State Bank of India Staff federation on promotion avenues/career progression for workmen staff vide memorandum of settlement dated 12. 04. 1999 (Annexure P-1 at page 17 of the paper book ). In terms of settlement contained in Annexure P-1, all those employees of the Bank who were working in the clerical cadre were entitled to time bound promotion to the post of Senior Assistants on completion of 17 years of service and to the second promotion from Senior Assistants to Special Assistants on completing 25 years of service. The benefit of time bound promotion/upgradation was made applicable to the employees of the Bank w. e. f. 01. 04. 1999. The petitioner was admittedly not granted the benefit of the settlement contained in the memorandum of settlement dated 12. 04. 1999 and aggrieved therefrom, she filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 6398/2003 in this Court which was disposed of vide order passed on 10. 08. 2005 directing the respondent bank to consider the representation/claim of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant having regard to the settlement/policy and its circular dated 05. 03. 2001 within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The respondent bank was directed to pass a speaking order under communication to the petitioner.

(2.) PURSUANT to the order passed by this Court on 10. 08. 2005 in WP (C) No. 6398/2003, the respondent bank has passed the impugned order denying the benefits of the settlement to the petitioner. The impugned order is Annexure P-23 at page 94 of the paper book. The reasons for denial of the benefits of the settlement given by the respondent bank in the impugned order are as follow:-

(3.) THE settlement between the State Bank of India and the All India State bank of India Staff Federation on promotion avenues/career progression for workmen staff of the bank as contained in Annexure P-1 at page 17 of the paper book is not denied by Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. However, the contention of Mr. Kapoor appearing on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the settlement because she does not meet the eligibility criteria for the benefits as provided in the settlement itself. According to Mr. Kapoor, a list of all those employees in the bank who have completed 17 years of service as on 01. 04. 1999 was required to be prepared every year in the month of April and the scheme of settlement also envisages transfer/deployment of the employee to be promoted in terms of settlement at a place other than his original place of posting. Mr. Kapoor has further contended that the scheme of settlement as contained in the memorandum of settlement dated 12. 04. 1999 was made applicable to Delhi region w. e. f 28. 08. 2001, the petitioner cannot take benefits of the settlement since she was not in Delhi region at that time and had already taken vrs on 31. 03. 2001. Mr. Kapoor has relied upon Annexure P-10 at page 69 in support of his said contention. Mr. Kapoor has also contended that the scheme of settlement was made applicable to Lucknow circle w. e. f. 01. 04. 2000 and since the petitioner was transferred to Lucknow circle in August, 2000, she became entitled to be considered for the benefits under the scheme of settlement only in April, 2001. According to Mr. Kapoor, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion/upgradation in terms of settlement on 01. 04. 2001 as she had already taken VRS prior to the said date.