Jammu Rural Bank Employees Association vs Union of India and Others

This petition, has been preferred by the Jammu Rural Bank Employees' Association through one Rajan Sharma. In this petition, challenge is

being made to an order copy whereof annexure C to this writ petition. This order was passed on 26.10.1999. This order, for facility of reference,

is being reproduced below:

KAMRAZ RURAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE NEW COLONY, SOPORE Ref. No. Per Staff/99873 Dated 26.10.1999.

ORDER

Consequent upon the decision taken in the meeting held on 16.07.1999 between Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic

Affairs, Banking) Division, New Delhi Sponsor Banks NABARD and Reserve Bank of India for adjustment of staff from one Regional Rural Bank

to another Regional Rural Bank running under the sponsothership of the sponsor Bank, services of Shri. Ramesh Kumar Pandita, CashiercumClerk

Code No. 1021 of this Bank presently stationed at Jammu/ Udhampur/Nagrota/Delhi etc. as migrant are placed on deputation to Jammu Rural

Bank on the following terms and conditions:

i) That no deputation allowance shall be paid but will draw his/her pay and usual allowances from Jammu Rural Bank.

ii) His/her services can be recalled at any time.

iii) He/she shall retain lien on his/her services in Kamraz Rural Bank during the period of his/her deputation.

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Pandita. CashiercumClerk, Code No. 1021 will report Jammu Rural Bank, Head Office. Town Hall Building, Jammu on

November 1999 at 10 A.M. sharp positively failure on his/her part to report at the said date and time, shall sic noncompliance of orders and in that

case he/ she shall be treated absent from duty and action as warranted under rules government his/her services shall be initiated.

By order of Competent Authority. Sd/

(Syed Khurshid Ahmad Shah) Manager Personnel.

It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. It is submitted that an employee of Kamraz Rural Bank cannot be sent to the

Jammu Rural Bank. The is the main argument put across by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners' association. In addition to this, it is

submitted that when employees were being transferred from Kamraz Rural Bank to Jammu Rural Bank, representations were submitted before the

Central Government and the Central Government had decided to examine the matter. Working group was constituted. This is sought to be

reflected by placing reliance on annexure B.

In a nutshell, case of the petitioner's association is that when employees of Kamraz Rural Bank are sent to Jammu Rural Bank then this would

adversely affect the service conditions of the employees of Jammu Rural Bank. It would block their chances of promotion and there is also a

possibility of these employees being sent to a place from where employees of Kamraz Rural Bank have been shifted. It is submitted that by this

process employees of Jammu Rural Bank may be shifted from the Jammu province and this would effect their service conditions.

Objections have been preferred by the various respondents including Reserve Bank of India. Stand taken is that in view of the provisions and

more particularly section 17(1), it is lawful for a sponsor bank, if requested so to do by a Regional Rural Bank sponsored by it to send such

number of officers or other employees on deputation to the Regional Rural Bank as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of

its functions. It is further case of the Reserve Bank of India that Jammu Rural Bank made a request on 5.8.1998 to lead bank department i.e.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited. Additional staff requirement was indicated as 89 clerks, 39 messengers and 10 typists. It was this request

which was considered by the Sponsor Bank. Thereafter, meeting was held. This meeting was attended by Chairman of Jammu Rural Bank and

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Chairman of the Kamraz Rural Bank also participated. It was in this manner, a decision was taken to send an

employees of Kamraz Rural Bank to the Jammu Rural Bank.

Only question which is required to be gone into is that as to whether action of the respondents is supported by any statutory provision or not.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India rightly submits such a situation is visualised in Kamraz Rural Bank. Act. Section 17

makes a specific provision in this regard. As specific reliance has been placed on section 17(1) it would be apt to notice the same. This section

reads as under:

17(1) A Regional Rural Bank may appoint such number of officers and other employees as it may consider necessary or desirable in such manner

as may be prescribed for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service;

Provided that it shall be lawful for a sponsor bank, if requested so to do by a Regional Rural Bank sponsored by it, to sent a such number of

officers or other employees on deputation to the Regional Rural Bank as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its

functions;

Provided further that the remuneration of officers and other employees appointed by a Regional Rural Bank shall be such as may be determined by

the Central Government and in determining such remuneration, the Central Government shall have due regard to the salary structure of the

employees of the St; 'e Government and the local authorities of comparable level and status in the notified area.

A perusal of the above provision makes it apparent that sponsor bank if requested so to do by a Regional Rural Bank can send on deputation

the employees of other Rural Bank to any other bank. This is precisely what has happened in this case.

Jammu Rural Bank was feeling a necessity of additional staff. There was shortage of 89 clerks. 39 messengers and 10 typists. This request was

considered and employees of Kamraz Rural Bank have been shifted. If this be the position then it cannot be said that action of the respondents is

any way contrary to the statutory provision noticed above. Apprehension of the petitioners association is that its members would be shifted to

other places which have been vacated by the employees who have now been adjusted is without any basis. Employees who have been shifted are

being adjusted against the vacancies and not against the vacancy where somebody is already functioning. As and when any such thing happens the

individual which is affected by any order would be at liberty to approach this court again. At present action taken by the respondents is found to be

duly supported by statutory provision noticed above.

This petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.