AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. S.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2.5.2013 whereby his representation dated 12.2.2013 has been rejected by the General Manager (NW-1), S.B.I., Lucknow. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to absorb him permanently in the service of the respondent-Bank in terms of the various Circulars issued by the Bank.

(2.) As per the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Officer ? Marketing & Recovery (Rural) on contract basis for a period of 2 years from 19.5.2008 to 18.5.2010 vide appointment letter dated 14/19.5.2008. It is claimed by the petitioner that several contract employees were appointed as Officer ? Marketing and Recovery and thereafter the respondent-Bank also issued Circulars on 20.7.2010, 26.7.2010 and 18.8.2010 laying down a policy for absorption of contract employee who had achieved a target of 60%. Subsequently by the Circular dated 26.7.2010 the achievement target of 60% was relaxed and a period of 1 -2 months relaxation was given to the new incumbent before considering the target allotment and achievement. Further by the Circular dated 18.8.2010 the condition of 60% target achievement was further relaxed and it was provided that if the services of the contract employee are used in work other than the work allotted to them that factor shall also be taken into consideration while assessing the target achievement of the concerned employee. According to the petitioner some of the contract employees including the petitioner filed writ petition no. 57034 of 2010 claiming that persons lower in merit have been absorbed ignoring the petitioner. All the writ petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment dated 28.1.2013 and the respondent-Bank was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners including the present petitioner on their individual representation and thereafter pass reasoned orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the direction of the High Court, he submitted his representation before the Regional Branch Office as well as Local Head Office, State Bank of India, Lucknow on 12.2.2013. However, instead of considering the representation on merits in the light of the Circulars of the Bank, the impugned order dated 2.5.2013 has been passed by the General Manager (NW-1), State Bank of India, H.R. Department, Local Head Officer, Lucknow rejecting the claim of the petitioner for permanent absorption.