DAMBARUDHAR DAS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, has filed this petition for the following reliefs: "On the facts and in the circumstances stated above, the petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to :

(2.) THE short fact of the case, in hand, is that on being duly selected, the petitioner was recruited in the Clerical cadre and was appointed as Cashier -cum -Clerk -Typists (CCT) and was posted to Bargarh Branch of the State Bank of India vide O.M.No.122 dated 17.4.1979 of Branch Manager, Bargarh. The service of the petitioner was confirmed in the said cadre with effect from 17.04.1979 pursuant to letter dated 16.12.1980 vide Annexure -2. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted in different places and discharged his duties assigned to him. While he was continuing in Bargarh branch, he was appointed as Teller on 8.1.1986 and thereafter appointed as Head Clerk on 30.7.1986 on six months probation basis and was posted at Rourkela Industrial Estate Branch. The petitioner submitted a representation on 1.8.1986 to the Branch Manager, Barbil Branch requesting him to allow extension of joining time for three months as Head Clerk on personal reason. Again he submitted another representation to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Sambalpur seeking inter -region transfer to Karanjia Branch. The Branch Manager of Karanjia Branch also recommended the case of the petitioner for inter -region transfer to Karanjia Branch under the Bank's laid down norms vide Annexure -5 dated 1.8.1986. The petitioner's appointment as Head Clerk was cancelled on 30.4.1987 vide Annexure -6 and thereafter, he was again appointed as Head Clerk on six months probation basis and was posted to Anandpur Branch vide letter dated 12.12.1988 in Annexure -7. While he was so continuing as per para 5.2 of Head Office Circular Special Letter No.CDO/PER and HRD/21 of 1999 -2000, the post of Head Clerk was redesignated as Senior Assistant and accordingly, the petitioner's post was re -designated on 24.1.2001 vide Annexure -9. The petitioner thereafter was posted as Special Assistant and was posted to Barbil Branch on payment of special allowance of Rs.1213/ - per month.

(3.) MR .B.S.Tripathy -1, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the appointment of the petitioner by way of promotion in the cadre of Special Assistant posting him at Bhuban Branch dated 27.1.2004 is a conditional one inasmuch as it is urged that he was to be relieved from his duties for Bhuban Branch on 31.1.2004 with instruction to report to Branch Manager, Bhuban Branch on the following day ( in case of local branch/ after availing joining journey period ( in case of outstation branch). It is further indicated that if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the appointment to the allowance carrying post, he had to convey his refusal/ willingness on the lines of the proforma enclosed thereto and refusal to accept the appointment would debar him to further appointment to in -cadre allowance carrying position for a period of three years from the date he is eligible for appointment on Special Pay carrying position and after completion of three years, he may request for consideration of appointment to a Special Pay carrying post to the controlling authority. It is further urged that if the authority could not receive the consent/ refusal within three days of receipt of the aforesaid letter of appointment, the Bank would proceed accordingly without further notice. It is urged that since the petitioner had been directed to be relieved from his duties for Bhuban Branch on 31.1.2004, therefore, consent/ refusal makes no difference as the said order was issued on 27.1.2004. But the letter dated 27.1.2004 in Annexure -10 was received by the petitioner on 19.2.2004, by which time the three days period had already expired and thus, it has been treated that he had refused to receive the appointment. Consequently, he has been denied the benefit of such appointment, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law.