SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 2669

2011 (3) LLN 652, 2011 (6) MLJ 838
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
A. Senthil Kumar
Versus
The General Manager (NW2), State Bank of India, Local Head Office & Others
W.P.No.22698 of 2009
Decided on : 08-06-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.V. Subramanian, Senior Counsel, M.K. Muruganantham, Advocate.
For the Respondents:G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel, K.S. Sundar, Advocate.

The renewal of a contractual appointment is at the discretion of the employer, based on performance and suitability, as specified in the applicable service rules.

Headnote:

Discharge Certificate - Contractual Appointment - State Bank of India Service Rules for Customer Relation Executives (Personal Banking) 2007 - Rule 4

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste individual, served as a Customer Relation Executive on a contract basis with the State Bank of India. After the completion of the contract period, the petitioner's appointment was not renewed due to unsatisfactory performance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's appointment was subject to renewal based on performance and suitability, as per the State Bank of India Service Rules for Customer Relation Executives (Personal Banking) 2007. The petitioner's performance fell short of the required 60% target, and therefore, the non-renewal of the contract was deemed valid.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to demand regular or renewed contract appointment after the expiry of the initial contract period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment was governed by Rule 4 of the State Bank of India Service Rules for Customer Relation Executives (Personal Banking) 2007, which allowed for renewal of the contract based on performance, suitability, and the bank's needs. The petitioner's failure to meet the minimum performance requirement of 60% target led to the valid non-renewal of the contract.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the discharge certificate and the communication of termination dated 10.8.2009 issued by the General Manager, State Bank of India, the first respondent herein and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Customer Relation Executive, either on regular basis or at least by renewing the contract on par with other contractual candidates.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

(a) The petitioner passed B.Sc. Computer Science and M.B.A. with optional subject of Marketing and Operational Management. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

(b) Petitioner served as Customer Relation Executive (Personal Banking) in the State Bank of India for a period from 20.8.2007 to 19.8.2009 on contract basis. The petitioner initially worked at Mylapore branch and he claims that he has achieved the targets stipulated by the Bank. Later on, he was transferred to Pudukkottai Branch.

(c) According to the petitioner, he had achieved more than 75% of the budgeted level till 2009 and he was given variable pay by the respondent bank based on his performance. The petitioner claims that he has also brought out a substantial quantum of new business to the tune of Rs.4.09 crores against the budgeted level of Rs.5.00 crores in deposits between 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009. The appointment/contract was for a period of two years and it is stated in the order that the contractual appointment is subject to renewal.

(d) Petitioner contends that he is not given renewal of appointment after completion of two years and he was discharged from service, even though contract was renewed for others, who were appointed similar to the petitioner.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that the Central Recruitment and Promotion Department of State Bank of India issued an advertisement on 27.2.2007 and invited applications from Indian Citizens for appointment of 1000 + 15 + 300 contract vacancies for the contract appointment as Customer Relation Executives throughout India. The posts were notified as contract basis appointment for marketing banking products in personal banking sector. The advertisement dated 27.2.2007 specifically mentions that the vacancies are to be filled up on contract basis and such contract appointments will be initially for a period of two years. The eligible candidates were interviewed and successful candidates were appointed on contract basis. The appointees were subjected to State Bank of India Service Rules for Customer Relation Executives (Personal Banking) 2007 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). Rule 4 specifically states that the appointment will be purely contractual in nature for a specific period. The contract may be renewed on completion of contractual period depending on the performance and suitability of the Officer at Bank's discretion and needs of the bank. The officers shall also have the option to renew or not to renew the contract period at the time of expiry of the term of the contract.

4. The petitioner was given appointment on contract basis for two years and he cannot claim permanency. Renewal of contract appointment for further period is depending on the performance suitability and the need as per the above referred rule. The period of contract expired by efflux of time. As per the counter affidavit the renewal of contract is depending on the following factors: (1) business exigencies require such contractual appointment; and (2) performance of the Officers under contract are more than 60% of the target. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis from 20.8.2007 to 19.8.2009 i.e., for two years. Petitioner's performance in Pudukkottai branch was not satisfactory and 60% target was not achieved. Hence variable pay was not paid during the quarterly period of June, September, December, 2008 as well as March and June, 2009. Petitioner's employment on contract basis period came to an end on 19.8.200

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top