T.SASHI KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 6.2.2006 passed by the General Manager (Network -II) rejecting his claim for grant of house rent on consideration of his representation.

(2.) THE short fact of the case is that the petitioner joined the State Bank of India on 12.1.1979. Thereafter, he was assigned the job of Assistant Cashier on 5.10.1985. Subsequently, he was allowed to discharge the duties of a Senior Assistant on 1.4.2003 and thereafter he was given the assignment of Special Assistant. W hile working as such, he was transferred from Aska Branch to Purushottampur Branch vide Staff/SL/42/77 dated 3.12.2003. A circular letter was issued by the Bank in the Personnel and HRD Department, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar vide No.CIR/DO/P & HRD/ 31 of 2003 -04 dated 6.8.2003 relating to Settlement on Computerization, Redeployment/ Transfer of Workmen Staff and other HR related matters vide Annexure -2, which provided for payment of house rent to Clerical Staff @ Rs.500/ - per month. Thereafter, the said Personnel Department also issued another circular on 20.10.2003 vide Annexure -3 providing guidelines for in cadre career progression appointment of special pay carrying positions within the cadre in Clerical Staff. Under Clause 2(ii) eligibility was prescribed fixed for grant of special pay in respect of Special Assistant, and it was stated that all employees in Clerical Cadre (excluding Record Keepers/ Record Keeper -cum -Cashiers/ Godown Keepers/ Bill Collectors) with minimum qualification of Matriculation and 23 years of service or more as on 1st August each year and not drawing special pay of Rs.1213/ - per month or more. In view of the settlement made on 6.8.2003 and the subsequent circular dated 20.10.2003, the petitioner having been transferred from Aska Road to Purshottampur as Special Assistant, he claims that he is entitled to house rent, but the same has not been paid to him. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) MR .Satpathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.J.N.Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the benefit admissible to the petitioner pursuant to the circular vide Annexures -1 and 2 has not been extended and on erroneous consideration, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure -8. It is further urged that the order impugned vide Annexure -8 has been passed contrary to the guidelines in Annexures -1 and 2 by non -application of mind by the authorities.