M B PARMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Thirty seven petitioners in Special Civil Application No.5921 of 2001 and two petitioners in Special Civil Application No.5922 of 2001 are before this Court challenging different orders whereunder they have been reverted from the post of Middle Management Grade Scale II/ III (hereinafter referred to as "MMGS-II/ III") to Junior Management Grade Scale I (hereinafter referred to as "JMGS-I") on their voluntary retirement under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBI VRS), 2000 on the ground that the petitioners have not completed the rural assignment as per the Staff Circular No.17 of 1990 dated 17.02.1990 issued by the respondent Bank in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ applications are that under Staff Circular No.90 of 2000-01 dated 30.12.2000 Voluntary Retirement Scheme was adopted. The persons opting for Voluntary Retirement were to submit their applications/ fill up form between 15th to 31st January 2001. It is to be noted that on 03.01.2001 Staff Circular No.91 of 2000-01 was issued clearly informing the persons opting for Voluntary Retirement that if an officer, who has not completed mandatory rural/ semi urban assignment (either wholly or partly) submits an application for retirement under SBI VRS, his request would be subject to the provisions contained in Circular No.SC:31 of 1999-2000 dated 29.06.1999. Thus, in case of an officer from this category applying for retirement under SBI VRS before approving his case, his promotion would stand withdrawn. The petitioners who were working in JMGS-I were promoted to the post of MMGS-II/ III in the year 1988 or thereafter. They continued to work and held post for 8 to 12 years. After the scheme of Voluntary Retirement was floated the petitioners were informed about the scheme, they were supplied with a copy of the scheme and the forms and their acknowledgments were taken. The petitioners submitted forms and tendered their resignations. However, their resignations were accepted after they were reverted to JMGS-I. The petitioners say and submit that Staff Circular No.91 of 2000-01 dated 03.01.2001 was never brought to their notice and as such an administrative fraud was played upon them, they were kept in dark, they were duped and the promotion which was given to them in the year 1988 onwards was withdrawn just for nothing and even for no fault of theirs. It is also submitted that the Circular of the Central Government has its own importance, but the petitioners for no fault of theirs if could not be sent to rural service/ semi urban services, then on the date of their retirement or resignation they could not be reverted back to their original cadre of JMGS-I. It is also submitted that the Bank had submitted before the Supreme Court that the Circular directions issued by the Union of India would be observed by them and the benefit of promotion would be withdrawn if there are lapses on the part of the employee/ officer and not otherwise. It is also submitted that the petitioners made clear allegations that Circular dated 03.01.2001 was never brought to their notice and the respondent Bank is submitting evasive replies. It is also submitted that before coming to this Court in this writ application, certain representations were made, wherein it was brought to the notice of the Bank that if the amended condition was a part of the original Staff Circular No.90 of 2000-01 the petitioners would not have opted voluntary resignation. It is submitted that in absence of service of Staff Circular No.91 of 2000-01 an order adverse to the interest of the petitioners could not be passed.

(3.) The respondents have filed their detailed affidavit. They have submitted that Circular No.90 of 2000-01 was circulated amongst the petitioners and all other eligible staff and Circular No.91 of 2000-01 was within the knowledge of the petitioners and it was brought to their knowledge. They have submitted that if promotion to the petitioners could not be given because of non completion of rural services/ semi urban services, then the Bank would be absolutely justified in reverting the petitioners on the date of cessation of the relationship of employer and employee. It is also submitted that if the petitioners knew about the amended circular, then they have no reason to come to this Court and make a submission that a fraud has been played upon them.