RAM NARAIN SINLIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is whether an employee of the State Bank of India can be posted in a regional rural bank without his consent.

(2.) The petitioner was in the employment of the State Bank of India in Senior Management Grade Scale IV as Manager, Regional Stationary Department at the Head Office at Patna when the impugned orders in Annexures 3 and 5 were passed. The question of selection of the Chairman of Samastipur Rural Bank, a bank established under the provisions of the Rural Regional Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the R.B. Act') arose and the petitioner No. 1 was chosen for the post. According to the petitioner's case, his consent was never obtained and as soon as he learnt about the decision, he expressed his unwillingness to join the post by his letter, Annex. 1, dated 19-12-1983. He also asked the Officers' Association of the State Bank to take up the issue. The matter was referred to the Central Office of the Bank which refused to rescind the appointment by the order as contained in Annex. 3 dated 24-2-1984. The petitioner again represented, but by Annex. 5 dated 22-3-1984 he was directed to hand over charge and proceed to Samastipur Bank. He then filed a suit but later came to this Court with the present application in May, 1984. The case was admitted but the prayer for stay was refused.

(3.) The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 was enacted in 1976 with the object of developing rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for other connected matters. S. 3 of the Act deals with the establishment and incorporation of rural banks. It states that the Central Government may, if requested so to do by a Sponsor Bank, establish a rular bank and such a bank shall be a body corporate. The third sub-section of this section which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the argument reads as follows:-