Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Amrita Sinha, J.
Rakesh Kumar Sahoo - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 1182 (W) of 2019
Decided On : 26-04-2019
Termination - Contractual Service - State Bank of India - 2008 Rules, 2012 revised Rules - Articles 14, 21, 38, 43 of the Constitution of India - [Termination] - [Law Officer Appointment] - [2008 Rules, 2012 revised Rules] - The court discussed the State Bank of India Service Rules for Law Officers appointed on contract basis - 2008 and the amendments thereof, and the revised terms of contract that came into effect on and from 1st April, 2012. The court highlighted the provisions related to termination, performance appraisal, and the maximum contractual period of ten years. The court also considered the constitutional principles under Articles 14, 21, 38, and 43 of the Constitution of India and their applicability to the termination decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Law Officer in the State Bank of India on a contractual basis. After nearly ten years of service, the bank terminated the petitioner's contract two months before the completion of the contractual period. The petitioner challenged the termination, seeking permanent absorption and consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the bank's decision to terminate the petitioner's contractual service. The court emphasized that the petitioner's engagement was time-bound with a maximum period of ten years and was never intended to be made permanent. The court also noted that the termination was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the petitioner's contractual service, the applicability of constitutional principles, and the petitioner's demand for permanent absorption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's contractual engagement was time-bound and not intended to be made permanent. The court emphasized the discretion of the employer in terminating contractual service and highlighted the absence of provisions for extending the contractual period beyond ten years. The court also emphasized the distinction between regular and contractual employees and the employer's entitlement to select candidates through a fair and transparent recruitment process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
JUDGMENT :
In response to an advertisement published in the newspaper in the year 2007 the petitioner applied for being appointed in the post of Law Officer in the State Bank of India (SBI for short). The petitioner being successful in the recruitment process was issued appointment letter on 2nd February, 2009 for a period of three years from 2nd February, 2009 to 1st February, 2012 in the post of Junior Law Officer - S1 on contract and cost to the company basis. The service of the petitioner was governed by the State Bank of India Service Rules for Law Officers appointed on contract basis - 2008 and the amendments thereof.
2. The service of the petitioner was renewed till 31st March, 2012 on the existing and usual terms and conditions.
3. There was a revision of the terms of the contract whereby the contractual officers' who were engaged prior to 1st April, 2012 were to be guided by the revised terms of contract at the discretion of the bank from 1st April, 2012. A contractual employee who secured 60% marks in his last performance appraisal was eligible for being engaged as per the revised terms of contract. The eligible contractual officers were to execute a fresh contract from 1st April, 2012.
4. A contractual officer depending upon successful performance would be fitted in the designation as per annexure - III of the said contract. As the petitioner had the requisite cut off marks in his last performance appraisal report he was eligible for appointment according to the revised terms of contract from 1st April, 2012. A fresh engagement letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 20th July, 2012. As per the fresh contract the petitioner being the Law Officer of the bank was designated as the Assistant Vice- President for a period of two years from 1st April, 2012 to 31st March, 2014. The tenure of the petitioner as Vice-President (Law Officer) on contract was again extended for a period of two years from 1st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2016. The contract of the petitioner as Vice-President of the bank was once again extended for a further period of three years from 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2019.
5. By a letter dated 1st January, 2019 issued by the Assistant General Manager the service of the petitioner was decided to be terminated at the close of business on 31st January, 2019 vide note no. SARG/HR/APR/2018-19/104 dated 1st January, 2019. The SARG note dated 1st January, 2019 mentioned that as per management memo no. HR/CM/5/2018-19/903 no contractual employee should be in the service of the bank for a continuous period of ten years since the time of original joining. As the date of joining of the petitioner was 2nd February, 2009 he would complete ten years of service on 1st February, 2019, accordingly, it is proposed to terminate his contract on 31st January, 2019. As per the said note the General Manager was authorized to issue the termination of job contract to the officer concerned.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision to terminate his service has filed the instant writ application with a prayer for setting aside the said impugned letter of termination and the approval note both dated 1st January, 2019 being Annexure-P9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has made a further prayer for directing the respondents to absorb him as permanent employee in the existing sanctioned vacant post and provide him the consequential benefits. The grounds for challenging the impugned letter of termination are that the letter of termination has been issued by an officer who is not authorized under law to issue the same. The performance of the petitioner being satisfactory his service cannot be abruptly terminated on the apprehension that the petitioner will claim absorption as permanent employee of the bank upon completion of ten years of continuous service.
7. It has been submitted that according to the 2008 Rules read with the 2012 revised Rules it is the appointing authority i.e. the General Manager of the bank w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
